Am I doing intersections right?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Am I doing intersections right?

Joel H.

I wouldn't call myself new exactly, but since most roads were down since the time I joined somethings are hazy.

I have recently added and changed some details related to intersections (mostly adding slip roads and traffic lights).

What I'm mostly interested about are slip (turn left anytime with care) roads. I have made the decision for slip roads to inherit both the name and the road type (with the addition of making it a linking road) from its destination.

You can see examples here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-27.82146/153.02973

And here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-27.50755/152.94778

I don't think direction routing is a good source to go off. But when I do it my way OSRM will say "Turn left onto the sliproad towards Mount Lindesay Highway" I feel that this is correct.


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Am I doing intersections right?

Alex Sims
Hi,

You might be mapping for the renderer. :)

I have been not giving slip roads a name and making sure they are highway=secondary_link, trunk_link etc, which is considered valid by Keep Right, Geofabrik etc. It also makes sense on the ground as there is no physical sign on the slip road to give its name, it has none.

This then works correctly when using mkgmap and putting the data on a Garmin GPS. 

Alex

On 24 Apr 2018, at 1:23 pm, Joel H. <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have recently added and changed some details related to intersections (mostly adding slip roads and traffic lights).

What I'm mostly interested about are slip (turn left anytime with care) roads. I have made the decision for slip roads to inherit both the name and the road type (with the addition of making it a linking road) from its destination.

You can see examples here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-27.82146/153.02973




_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Am I doing intersections right?

Andrew Harvey-3
On 24 April 2018 at 14:28, Alex Sims <[hidden email]> wrote:
You might be mapping for the renderer. :)

I have been not giving slip roads a name and making sure they are highway=secondary_link, trunk_link etc, which is considered valid by Keep Right, Geofabrik etc. It also makes sense on the ground as there is no physical sign on the slip road to give its name, it has none.

This then works correctly when using mkgmap and putting the data on a Garmin GPS. 

I agree, if there if is not named via a sign or otherwise on the ground then I would leave the name field on the link road empty. Routers should be able to work out the best instructions to give without a name on the link via the network already.


Link roads normally do not have names. Please use the destination=* and its extensions tag to give the cross-street's ref=* and signed destinations such as a city or the name of the destination street, so that routing engines can correctly announce the exit to the "name or ref of the destination street" as you enter the _link. 

It looks like these are "At-grade intersections" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link#At-grade_intersections says "Here too it probably makes more sense to consider the links as "belonging" to the more major highway." so I've always been giving link roads the classification of higher class road they are connected with, ie. in your example all 4 would be trunk_link.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Am I doing intersections right?

osm.talk-au
From: Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 17:01
To: OSM Australian Talk List <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?

> I agree, if there if is not named via a sign or otherwise
> on the ground then I would leave the name field on the link
> road empty. Routers should be able to work out the best
> instructions to give without a name on the link via the network
> already.

I fully agree that that's the way it should be, unfortunately the routers don't seem to always get it right:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=-27.24200%2C153.02386%3B-27.24130%2C153.02422



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Am I doing intersections right?

Michael-7
For some reason it wont show me the location of the pins when I go to that link.

I had looked at that area once before and noticed some odd stuff in josm but left it alone.

I've gone back in with josm and made some changes, if the routing starts working (note sure on caching times before we see it) then I would call it fixed.



-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 6:46 PM
To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?

From: Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 17:01
To: OSM Australian Talk List <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?

> I agree, if there if is not named via a sign or otherwise on the
> ground then I would leave the name field on the link road empty.
> Routers should be able to work out the best instructions to give
> without a name on the link via the network already.

I fully agree that that's the way it should be, unfortunately the routers don't seem to always get it right:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=-27.24200%2C153.02386%3B-27.24130%2C153.02422



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Am I doing intersections right?

Michael-7
Ok it seems the OSM website will not centre you on an area from a link but takes you back to the last area you looked at.

Now ... I have removed 2 tags from the slip lane sections.


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 7:13 PM
To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?

For some reason it wont show me the location of the pins when I go to that link.

I had looked at that area once before and noticed some odd stuff in josm but left it alone.

I've gone back in with josm and made some changes, if the routing starts working (note sure on caching times before we see it) then I would call it fixed.



-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 6:46 PM
To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?

From: Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 17:01
To: OSM Australian Talk List <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?

> I agree, if there if is not named via a sign or otherwise on the
> ground then I would leave the name field on the link road empty.
> Routers should be able to work out the best instructions to give
> without a name on the link via the network already.

I fully agree that that's the way it should be, unfortunately the routers don't seem to always get it right:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=-27.24200%2C153.02386%3B-27.24130%2C153.02422



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Am I doing intersections right?

osm.talk-au
Please don't break my placement tags. (I've restored them.) They were there on purpose, and they are not what causes OSRM to generate that "Turn left onto unnamed road" instruction.

Also, please don't delete my transit relations, these things take a lot of work to properly setup without explicit editor support.

In case you are wondering what these tags are for, they are part of detailed lane tagging as you can see here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ednlniwp6bcl5wk/1521024394681.jpg?dl=0

The placement=transition tag is necessary to indicate that this particular segment is not actually where it is in the real world, but is necessary because of the discrepancy between mapping roads as lines and roads having a width an multiple lanes in the real world.

The transit relation is necessary to define which of the lanes from one way segment connect to which of the lanes in the next way segment. In this case it indicates that the leftmost turn lane flows straight into that slip road.


The other 3 slip roads at this intersection have the same tags, and they do not result in OSRM producing such a driving instruction. If there were any obvious tagging mistakes, I would have fixed them already.


Cheers,
Thorsten

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 19:33
> To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
>
> Ok it seems the OSM website will not centre you on an area from a
> link but takes you back to the last area you looked at.
>
> Now ... I have removed 2 tags from the slip lane sections.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 7:13 PM
> To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
>
> For some reason it wont show me the location of the pins when I go
> to that link.
>
> I had looked at that area once before and noticed some odd stuff in
> josm but left it alone.
>
> I've gone back in with josm and made some changes, if the routing
> starts working (note sure on caching times before we see it) then I
> would call it fixed.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] <osm.talk-
> [hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 6:46 PM
> To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
>
> From: Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 17:01
> To: OSM Australian Talk List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
>
> > I agree, if there if is not named via a sign or otherwise on the
> > ground then I would leave the name field on the link road empty.
> > Routers should be able to work out the best instructions to give
> > without a name on the link via the network already.
>
> I fully agree that that's the way it should be, unfortunately the
> routers don't seem to always get it right:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=-
> 27.24200%2C153.02386%3B-27.24130%2C153.02422
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

FW: Am I doing intersections right?

Michael-7
Sorry,

Though not all of those slip lanes is the same, the broken one has through_route which is not a valid tag. (Category rejected)

Several other relations there also have that tag, however they are all named ways.

Perhaps that is the cause?


(Second reply for the list)

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 11:36 PM
To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?

Please don't break my placement tags. (I've restored them.) They were there on purpose, and they are not what causes OSRM to generate that "Turn left onto unnamed road" instruction.

Also, please don't delete my transit relations, these things take a lot of work to properly setup without explicit editor support.

In case you are wondering what these tags are for, they are part of detailed lane tagging as you can see here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ednlniwp6bcl5wk/1521024394681.jpg?dl=0

The placement=transition tag is necessary to indicate that this particular segment is not actually where it is in the real world, but is necessary because of the discrepancy between mapping roads as lines and roads having a width an multiple lanes in the real world.

The transit relation is necessary to define which of the lanes from one way segment connect to which of the lanes in the next way segment. In this case it indicates that the leftmost turn lane flows straight into that slip road.


The other 3 slip roads at this intersection have the same tags, and they do not result in OSRM producing such a driving instruction. If there were any obvious tagging mistakes, I would have fixed them already.


Cheers,
Thorsten

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 19:33
> To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
>
> Ok it seems the OSM website will not centre you on an area from a link
> but takes you back to the last area you looked at.
>
> Now ... I have removed 2 tags from the slip lane sections.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 7:13 PM
> To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
>
> For some reason it wont show me the location of the pins when I go to
> that link.
>
> I had looked at that area once before and noticed some odd stuff in
> josm but left it alone.
>
> I've gone back in with josm and made some changes, if the routing
> starts working (note sure on caching times before we see it) then I
> would call it fixed.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] <osm.talk-
> [hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 6:46 PM
> To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
>
> From: Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 17:01
> To: OSM Australian Talk List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
>
> > I agree, if there if is not named via a sign or otherwise on the
> > ground then I would leave the name field on the link road empty.
> > Routers should be able to work out the best instructions to give
> > without a name on the link via the network already.
>
> I fully agree that that's the way it should be, unfortunately the
> routers don't seem to always get it right:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=-
> 27.24200%2C153.02386%3B-27.24130%2C153.02422
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FW: Am I doing intersections right?

osm.talk-au
through_route belongs to the transit tag (and is documented in the wiki on that page)

I'm highly doubtful if any router is actually making proper use of lane attributes beyond turn:lanes currently.

I think it's actually the angle at which the slip road splits off, that's responsible for the strange routing instruction. But I haven't had time to experiment with that yet.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 April 2018 22:12
> To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [talk-au] FW: Am I doing intersections right?
>
> Sorry,
>
> Though not all of those slip lanes is the same, the broken one has
> through_route which is not a valid tag. (Category rejected)
>
> Several other relations there also have that tag, however they are
> all named ways.
>
> Perhaps that is the cause?
>
>
> (Second reply for the list)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] <osm.talk-
> [hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 11:36 PM
> To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
>
> Please don't break my placement tags. (I've restored them.) They
> were there on purpose, and they are not what causes OSRM to
> generate that "Turn left onto unnamed road" instruction.
>
> Also, please don't delete my transit relations, these things take a
> lot of work to properly setup without explicit editor support.
>
> In case you are wondering what these tags are for, they are part of
> detailed lane tagging as you can see here:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ednlniwp6bcl5wk/1521024394681.jpg?dl=0
>
> The placement=transition tag is necessary to indicate that this
> particular segment is not actually where it is in the real world,
> but is necessary because of the discrepancy between mapping roads
> as lines and roads having a width an multiple lanes in the real
> world.
>
> The transit relation is necessary to define which of the lanes from
> one way segment connect to which of the lanes in the next way
> segment. In this case it indicates that the leftmost turn lane
> flows straight into that slip road.
>
>
> The other 3 slip roads at this intersection have the same tags, and
> they do not result in OSRM producing such a driving instruction. If
> there were any obvious tagging mistakes, I would have fixed them
> already.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Thorsten
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 19:33
> > To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' <[hidden email]>
> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
> >
> > Ok it seems the OSM website will not centre you on an area from a
> link
> > but takes you back to the last area you looked at.
> >
> > Now ... I have removed 2 tags from the slip lane sections.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 7:13 PM
> > To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' <[hidden email]>
> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
> >
> > For some reason it wont show me the location of the pins when I
> go to
> > that link.
> >
> > I had looked at that area once before and noticed some odd stuff
> in
> > josm but left it alone.
> >
> > I've gone back in with josm and made some changes, if the routing
> > starts working (note sure on caching times before we see it) then
> I
> > would call it fixed.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [hidden email] <osm.talk-
> > [hidden email]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 6:46 PM
> > To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' <[hidden email]>
> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
> >
> > From: Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2018 17:01
> > To: OSM Australian Talk List <[hidden email]>
> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Am I doing intersections right?
> >
> > > I agree, if there if is not named via a sign or otherwise on
> the
> > > ground then I would leave the name field on the link road empty.
> > > Routers should be able to work out the best instructions to
> give
> > > without a name on the link via the network already.
> >
> > I fully agree that that's the way it should be, unfortunately the
> > routers don't seem to always get it right:
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=-
> > 27.24200%2C153.02386%3B-27.24130%2C153.02422
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Am I doing intersections right?

Joel H.
In reply to this post by Joel H.
I guess now my question is, do we need better definitions of the usage
of the destination tag?

I saw back on that North Lakes intersection linked before
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-27.24180/153.02459). That we had
the destination= tag filled with the Suburb. Shouldn't this be the road
name? Should we go by what is sign posted? Even then, on the Motorway it
isn't rare to see both a road name and locality signposted.

Perhaps we should talk to the wider community about a tagging arrangement?

A solution that I saw on the North Lakes intersection was to have
destination:street=.

Should we at least improve the wiki a little bit?


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Am I doing intersections right?

Graeme Fitzpatrick
Would it depend on the router & how it gives the name? (Voice nav is turned off on mine, so I don't  know!)

Will it tell you, "Turn left into Whatever St" or will it be "Turn left towards Whichever suburb"


Thanks

Graeme

On 28 April 2018 at 12:20, Joel H. <[hidden email]> wrote:
I guess now my question is, do we need better definitions of the usage
of the destination tag?

I saw back on that North Lakes intersection linked before
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-27.24180/153.02459). That we had
the destination= tag filled with the Suburb. Shouldn't this be the road
name? Should we go by what is sign posted? Even then, on the Motorway it
isn't rare to see both a road name and locality signposted.

Perhaps we should talk to the wider community about a tagging arrangement?

A solution that I saw on the North Lakes intersection was to have
destination:street=.

Should we at least improve the wiki a little bit?


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Am I doing intersections right?

Andrew Harvey-3
In reply to this post by Joel H.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination says:

In the road system, the key destination=* describes the content of signposts or ground writing indicating the names of the locations that the tagged way is heading to. Thus navigation systems can refer to road signs that the driver actually sees.

So it should be what the road signs say, if the road signs say take this exit for XXX Suburb then destination=XXX so the router can announce what the road sign they are looking at says. If the road signs say exit for YYY Street, then destination=YYY. Destination could be other things too, eg. Airport Arrivals/Departures.

I think the important thing is to map what's on the ground, ie. what the signs say.

On 28 April 2018 at 12:20, Joel H. <[hidden email]> wrote:
I guess now my question is, do we need better definitions of the usage
of the destination tag?

I saw back on that North Lakes intersection linked before
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-27.24180/153.02459). That we had
the destination= tag filled with the Suburb. Shouldn't this be the road
name? Should we go by what is sign posted? Even then, on the Motorway it
isn't rare to see both a road name and locality signposted.

Perhaps we should talk to the wider community about a tagging arrangement?

A solution that I saw on the North Lakes intersection was to have
destination:street=.

Should we at least improve the wiki a little bit?


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Am I doing intersections right?

Andrew Davidson-3
On 28/04/18 14:01, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> So it should be what the road signs say

+1

The intent of the destination tag appears to be allowing routers to say
"follow the signs to <name>".

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au