BaseCamp 3.3 and Routing

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

BaseCamp 3.3 and Routing

toc-rox
BaseCamp 3.3 offers some new features concerning routing:







How is it possible to take advantage from this features ?

Klaus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BaseCamp 3.3 and Routing

Charlie Ferrero
Weird that it gives the option to avoid roundabouts. I would have thought people would want to do the opposite (ie *prefer* roundabouts).

On 11 Feb 2012, at 14:17, toc-rox <[hidden email]> wrote:

> BaseCamp 3.3 offers some new features concerning routing:
>
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/file/n5474741/Routing-BC33-1.png 
>
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/file/n5474741/Routing-BC33-2.png 
>
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/file/n5474741/Routing-BC33-3.png 
>
> How is it possible to take advantage from this features ?
>
> Klaus
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/BaseCamp-3-3-and-Routing-tp5474741p5474741.html
> Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BaseCamp 3.3 and Routing

Greg Troxel

Charlie Ferrero <[hidden email]> writes:

> Weird that it gives the option to avoid roundabouts. I would have
> thought people would want to do the opposite (ie *prefer*
> roundabouts).

Where I live there are two rotaries (what we call roundabouts :-) that
are referred to by the locals as the "circles of death".  That
reputation is fading somewhat as there's been more enforcement of the
yield-to-those-already-in rule.  So I can see someone wanting that, but
I agree that it seems funny.

http://osm.org/go/ZfI4wPpa5-

_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

attachment0 (200 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BaseCamp 3.3 and Routing

toc-rox
In reply to this post by toc-rox
Garmin explains the new routing features as follows:

...
We added more activity profiles, in preparation for maps that will support routing based on activity (mountain-bikers might want different routes that road bikers).

You will now be able to add custom profiles, and you can hide profiles you are not interested in.
...
You can now adjust which map features you want to display for each profile. Future map products will also draw the map differently, depending which activity you have selected (e.g. we would draw highways less prominent if the activity is mountain-biking).
We made some routing changes under the hood to support activity routing. The road selection slider is gone, to make up for it we added more specific avoidances. This is also the way the devices are going. We are working with the device teams trying to make sure route settings match and routes are as similar as possible between BaseCamp and the device. This is an ongoing effort.
...

Source: https://forums.garmin.com/showpost.php?p=122139&postcount=3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BaseCamp 3.3 and Routing

Thorsten Kukuk
On Sun, Feb 12, toc-rox wrote:

> avoidances. This is also the way the devices are going. We are working with
> the device teams trying to make sure route settings match and routes are as
> similar as possible between BaseCamp and the device. This is an ongoing
> effort.

Which means you should buy now a Garmin device and don't
update the firmware until Garmin opens the format of the new maps.
Which, I'm afraid, will never happen :(

  Thorsten

--
Thorsten Kukuk, Project Manager/Release Manager SLES
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend├Ârffer, HRB 16746 (AG N├╝rnberg)
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BaseCamp 3.3 and Routing

ligfietser
A quick test shows me that BaseCamp 3.3 and the bicycle activity are not compatible anymore with mkgmap default rules.

In bicycle mode, carpool avoidance is turned on and greyed out. This means you cannot change this in this activity profile (you can turn it off in other activity profiles or an empty one).

Carpool avoidance is somehow translated that it blocks all routing with access=no, even when it has tags like bicycle=yes (which is ignored by basecamp). Cycleways gets a tag {add access = no; add bicycle = yes; add foot = yes} in the default styles, so this means there is no bicycle routing possible on cycleways anymore in this activity profile! :-(

A workaround is to change the tag access = no into add motor_vehicle=no but I haven't tested this yet.
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BaseCamp 3.3 and Routing

brathuhn
On my map when I set
  {set access = no; set bicycle = yes; set foot = yes}
on a highway Basecamp routes over it with the profiles:

Walking/Hiking/Mountaineering
Motorcycling
ATV
DirtBiking

Maybe one of this profiles can be used instead


On 13.02.2012 10:40, Minko wrote:

> A quick test shows me that BaseCamp 3.3 and the bicycle activity are not compatible anymore with mkgmap default rules.
>
> In bicycle mode, carpool avoidance is turned on and greyed out. This means you cannot change this in this activity profile (you can turn it off in other activity profiles or an empty one).
>
> Carpool avoidance is somehow translated that it blocks all routing with access=no, even when it has tags like bicycle=yes (which is ignored by basecamp). Cycleways gets a tag {add access = no; add bicycle = yes; add foot = yes} in the default styles, so this means there is no bicycle routing possible on cycleways anymore in this activity profile! :-(
>
> A workaround is to change the tag access = no into add motor_vehicle=no but I haven't tested this yet.
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>

_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BaseCamp 3.3 and Routing

osm-8
In reply to this post by ligfietser
Hi
My solution is the following:

highway=primary & access=no {name '${name} (${ref})' | '${ref}' |
'${name}'} [0x04 resolution 16]
highway=primary {name '${name} (${ref})' | '${ref}' | '${name}'} [0x04
road_class=1 road_speed=1 resolution 16]

If a way shouldn't be used (access=no; set before in stylefile) the way
wont get road_class and road_speed. Routing over these ways isn't
possible any more.

Of course this only works, if you only support one routing-type.

Henning

_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BaseCamp 3.3 and Routing

ligfietser
On certain GPS units routing will break with your method Henning,
if someone searches for a streetname which has a routable line (0x04) without road_class/road_speed.

See Jayjay01's post on http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=13884&p=5
See also this screenshot: http://sites.google.com/site/openfietsmap/_/rsrc/1302940205118/routing/501.bmp


_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BaseCamp 3.3 and Routing

osm-8
Ok, so it would be better to use non-routable ID's for access=no. Thanks
for the hint.

Henning

_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BaseCamp 3.3 and Routing

ligfietser
@Aighes
Yes, non-routable types dont have those issues, but a consquence is,
they are not findable in the street search anymore.

@brathuhn
Interesting, I havent tried those.
Problem is that those Basecamps profiles are not available yet on most GPS units.
Luckily most devices (except the new Etrex?) still understand bicycle=no tags

I wonder which line types corresponds to narrow trails, cable cars & climbing paths?
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BaseCamp 3.3 and Routing

osm-8
Am 13.02.2012 19:24, schrieb Minko:
> @Aighes
> Yes, non-routable types dont have those issues, but a consquence is,
> they are not findable in the street search anymore.
So are there better solutions for access=no?

Henning

_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev