Other routes use relations, and don't display on 'the map'. Bus routes,
train routes, hiking, cycling all use relations and don't normally
display on 'the map'.
All of these do break up some of the ways into sections that are
annoying for us to edit but it is needed for these routes (and other
things like changes in speed limits).
However ferries have to deviate from the 'way' for other vessels,
hazards etc so the existence of the way is only an indication not an
absolute.
---------------
Not certain what you mean by 'custom tagging'.
If you mean to have ways with tags different from those existing there
is nothing stopping you from doing so, but your going to be the only
person using them.
I think you might mean that 'your' ferry ways will be custom tagged and
then 'your' route relation would use them for the routing engines.
Could work.
However ... if the present ways are not what really happens .. then that
is a problem.
While it may 'look good' OSM is more about truth on the ground/water
than looking good.
Good luck .. it will not be easy!
On 26/11/18 11:43, Sigurjón Gísli Rúnarsson wrote:
Hi all,
I have had some recent feedback regarding my changes to the ferry
route paths in Sydney Harbour in August this year. I basically
changed the mapping from single way approach to relation approach. The
main reason for this change was so that the ferry route paths could be
used for routing purposes, to reflect what is actually happening on
the “ground” with these ferry route services.
The feedback I received from the OSM user is that these ferry routes
should be mapped back to single way approach as having ways
intersecting/branching between terminals/wharves should not be
allowed. Rather, there should only be a single way between wharves.
At the moment some routing engines take turns in the middle of the
harbour (example
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=-33.8471%2C151.1852%3B-33.8385%2C151.1760#map=16/-33.8434/151.1907>
– now fixed in database) which I agree is not ideal. I have tried to
map the ways to avoid this as much as possible.
I feel that I’m following the wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route=ferry with the relation
approach. At the time that I made the changes, I got only minimal
(all positive) feedback regarding my approach to this. But I can also
understand the reasoning behind why the single way approach is
preferred, as it looks better from a cartographic point of view on the
standard OSM map tiles and gives a good overview of the ferry routes.
Unfortunately mapping with the single way approach does not give
options for accurate routing based on the way the actual ferry
services operate.
The idea was brought forward to apply custom tagging to the “new” ways
that have been mapped based on the relation approach. These custom
tags (i.e. route=[custom tag]) could then be used in conjunction with
single way approach ways for routing based on services.
I am not saying this is ideal, but I am willing to look at any
compromise that could be perhaps suit everybody.
So my question is, is it possible to tag with custom tagging (i.e.
route=ferry_services) or any of the existing tags
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags? That would mean that routing
engines like graphHopper could keep using the route=ferry for it’s ‘A’
to ‘B’ foot routing.**
I think that moving forward, there will be the need for relation
approach (routable) ferry route paths. App devs and transport
agencies will have need to use these ways for routing. Obviously, this
is my opinion, so I would really appreciate your views on this.
Thank you
On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 at 23:42, Andrew Harvey <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I think so long as there's an active ferry route running between
two terminals then it should have a route=ferry[1] connecting
them, roughly following the actual geometry the route normally
takes. Where you have a ferry route that sometimes has a few
variants, eg. sometimes skips a terminal, or sometimes goes to a
different wharf, then that can be accounted for using the ferry
route relation.
As the wiki points out[1], this could be a simple way, or a route
relation[2]
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dferry
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route
On 6 August 2018 at 23:20, Sigurjón Gísli Rúnarsson
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi,
I would like to amend the Ferry routes in NSW, particularly in
and around Sydney using a different approach.
At the moment the Ferry routes are mapped with a *single way
approach,* by tagging a single way drawn along the whole route
(i.e. Circular Quay to Manly). The only benefit for the
single line approach, that I can see, is that it is simple and
represents well on the map tiles. The problem with this
approach is that it does not allow ways to share different
routes and or variants.
That’s where my particular problem lies. When I try to
generate route paths from GTFS Sydney Ferries and private
ferries (TfNSW) using the OSM Ferry route paths as the routing
network, a lot of errors occur. Many variants/trips in the
GTFS dataset, which are based on recent timetable information
from Sydney Ferries and other private operators, have no
routing options. This is because of the single way approach
between wharves.
For example, F4 Watsons Bay – Pyrmont via Rose Bay and
Circular Quay: To go from Rose Bay to Circular Quay the
routing takes you around the harbour (Taronga Zoo, Milsons
Point, Balmain and Darling H) before getting to CQ Wharf 5.
Instead, there should be a direct route displayed between Rose
Bay and Circular Quay
Another example is that one ferry service might use wharf 5 at
Circular Quay, but 20% of the trips/variants might use wharf
4. Those 20% of trips/variants will not route to and from the
correct wharf using the single way approach.
To be able to use the OSM Ferry route network for routing
using GTFS files from TfNSW, I want to map based on the
*relation approach*. Just like other transport modes are
being mapped in OSM (i.e. bus routes).
This would mean that more than one ferry route could share
some ways, enabling users to extract OSM ferry routes to use
for routing.
I would like to get thoughts from OSM users on this approach
before I start mapping in such way.
Regards,
Maradona11
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
