Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

Tagging mailing list
On 10/13/2020 6:30 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 17:41 Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:

I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e. a crossing node and a crossing way. This was described as an option on the highway=crossing wiki page until it was changed on 07:52, 3 October 2020by user Emvee by addng the diagram and its description.
If you don't like it, please change it back - I used it in place of a longish explanation.

Both of those are better, thanks! The routers that I use for testing seem to be aware of crossings without crossing nodes, so I too often forget to tag them.

I've always been surprised to see a footway=crossing/cycleway=crossing way with the intersection node tagged as highway=crossing. There's only a single physical crossing, so this seems contra to the one-feature-one-element rule.

A highway=crossing node makes sense in an area without mapped footways/cycleways. But if the crossing ways are mapped, routing software will need to examine the intersection node and scan the properties of all highways intersecting there. It seems to make tagging the node itself redundant.

Are there really routers that require the node be tagged as well?

Jason


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

Re: Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

voschix
I don't know what the routers need, to be honest.
I have adopted the approach happily because of the frequent two-stage approach. First the main road is mapped with foot/bicycle crossings as nodes , and at a later stage someone else may add the foot/cycleway detailsĀ  - I did not occur to me that there may be an advantage in removing at that stage the already existing crossing node.
I would also naively assume, that a car-only router does not need to inspect any of the foot/cycleways in the map, and can use the highway=crossing nodes as an indication to add small delays inthe routing.
Anyone in the router business listening in on this conversation?

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 17:39, Jmapb via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 10/13/2020 6:30 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 17:41 Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:

I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e. a crossing node and a crossing way. This was described as an option on the highway=crossing wiki page until it was changed on 07:52, 3 October 2020by user Emvee by addng the diagram and its description.
If you don't like it, please change it back - I used it in place of a longish explanation.

Both of those are better, thanks! The routers that I use for testing seem to be aware of crossings without crossing nodes, so I too often forget to tag them.

I've always been surprised to see a footway=crossing/cycleway=crossing way with the intersection node tagged as highway=crossing. There's only a single physical crossing, so this seems contra to the one-feature-one-element rule.

A highway=crossing node makes sense in an area without mapped footways/cycleways. But if the crossing ways are mapped, routing software will need to examine the intersection node and scan the properties of all highways intersecting there. It seems to make tagging the node itself redundant.

Are there really routers that require the node be tagged as well?

Jason

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
Volker Schmidt wrote:
I don't know what the routers need, to be honest.
> Anyone in the router business listening in on this conversation?

cycle.travel will take account of highway=crossing nodes (e.g. where a cycleway crosses a road), and adjust its routing weight accordingly. The adjustment is slightly different depending on the type of crossing and the highway= value of each connecting way.

It does not take any particular note of =crossing ways, other than to note that footway=crossing means that the rider should push.

It does not currently take any account of bicycle=no on a crossing, not least because bicycle=no is a very problematic tag - generally bicycle=dismount should be used instead, reserving bicycle=no for those circumstances where even pushing a bike is not legal (e.g. most public footpaths in England & Wales).

Richard

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

Re: Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

Adam Franco
In reply to this post by voschix
As someone who renders a driving-focused map of [the most twisty] roadways, I specifically have done exactly what Volker describes (looking at highway=crossing nodes only).

To provide an example, my renderer walks down each vehicle-legal way and demotes the curviness weighting for a distance in each direction whenever it encounters a highway=crossing node on that way (or nodes with highway=stop, highway=traffic_signals, barrier=traffic_calming, etc). This particular map doesn't care about the geometry of footways, sidewalks, paths, or buildings, so it can look at a much reduced data-set of just vehicle-specific highways. If highway=crossing nodes aren't available and crossings are only indicated on intersecting ways, then I'd have to add a preprocessing step to build a list of all nodes that are members of a highway=crossing way and then add that to the list of nodes tagged with highway=crossing. I guess it's not an impossible task, but it is much more simple to just look at nodes that are also members of the vehicle-accessible highway ways.

I know OsmAnd can be configured to alert drivers of upcoming crossings (and stop signs), but do not know if that router works only with nodes on the ways of the current route or also does matching on crossing ways.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 1:06 PM Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don't know what the routers need, to be honest.
I have adopted the approach happily because of the frequent two-stage approach. First the main road is mapped with foot/bicycle crossings as nodes , and at a later stage someone else may add the foot/cycleway detailsĀ  - I did not occur to me that there may be an advantage in removing at that stage the already existing crossing node.
I would also naively assume, that a car-only router does not need to inspect any of the foot/cycleways in the map, and can use the highway=crossing nodes as an indication to add small delays inthe routing.
Anyone in the router business listening in on this conversation?

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 17:39, Jmapb via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 10/13/2020 6:30 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 17:41 Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:

I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e. a crossing node and a crossing way. This was described as an option on the highway=crossing wiki page until it was changed on 07:52, 3 October 2020by user Emvee by addng the diagram and its description.
If you don't like it, please change it back - I used it in place of a longish explanation.

Both of those are better, thanks! The routers that I use for testing seem to be aware of crossings without crossing nodes, so I too often forget to tag them.

I've always been surprised to see a footway=crossing/cycleway=crossing way with the intersection node tagged as highway=crossing. There's only a single physical crossing, so this seems contra to the one-feature-one-element rule.

A highway=crossing node makes sense in an area without mapped footways/cycleways. But if the crossing ways are mapped, routing software will need to examine the intersection node and scan the properties of all highways intersecting there. It seems to make tagging the node itself redundant.

Are there really routers that require the node be tagged as well?

Jason

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
On 15/10/2020 17:36, Jmapb via Tagging wrote:

> I've always been surprised to see a footway=crossing/cycleway=crossing
> way with the intersection node tagged as highway=crossing. There's
> only a single physical crossing, so this seems contra to the
> one-feature-one-element rule.
>
> A highway=crossing node makes sense in an area without mapped
> footways/cycleways. But if the crossing ways are mapped, routing
> software will need to examine the intersection node and scan the
> properties of all highways intersecting there. It seems to make
> tagging the node itself redundant.
>
> Are there really routers that require the node be tagged as well?
>
Routers do not need highway=crossing to detect crossings, every node
where 3 or more ways connect is a crossing.

I also do not add highway=crossing unless I also add crossing=*


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

Re: Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 18. Oct 2020, at 09:46, Emvee via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Routers do not need highway=crossing to detect crossings, every node
> where 3 or more ways connect is a crossing.


sure, but many highway=crossings are tagged on nodes where only 2 ways (or one going through) connect.

Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list



Oct 18, 2020, 09:44 by [hidden email]:
On 15/10/2020 17:36, Jmapb via Tagging wrote:
I've always been surprised to see a footway=crossing/cycleway=crossing
way with the intersection node tagged as highway=crossing. There's
only a single physical crossing, so this seems contra to the
one-feature-one-element rule.

A highway=crossing node makes sense in an area without mapped
footways/cycleways. But if the crossing ways are mapped, routing
software will need to examine the intersection node and scan the
properties of all highways intersecting there. It seems to make
tagging the node itself redundant.

Are there really routers that require the node be tagged as well?
Routers do not need highway=crossing to detect crossings, every node
where 3 or more ways connect is a crossing.
Note that there are multiple cases where 3 or more ways connect without
it being a crossing.

Even after "any case where 3 or more ways connect, with at least one being
a road and at least 2 being a footway/path/cycleway/footway" amendment
not all of them will be crossing (footway joining terminal node of road,
two footways joinining road on one side etc).

Crossing may be in situation where just one footway line joins road.


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

Re: Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Richard Fairhurst
On 16/10/2020 09:06, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
It does not currently take any account of bicycle=no on a crossing, not least because bicycle=no is a very problematic tag - generally bicycle=dismount should be used instead, reserving bicycle=no for those circumstances where even pushing a bike is not legal (e.g. most public footpaths in England & Wales).

Good to hear what cycle.travel does regarding with bicycle=no/dismount on a crossing, that is ignore it. Also good to hear your perspective on bicycle=dismount versus bicycle=no. It makes sense but I was not aware.

On bicycle=no/dismount on highway=crossing: In >95% of the cases bicycle=no/dismount is useless because the access rights on the connecting ways suffice. My educated guess is that there are about 3000 crossings marked with bicycle=no/dismount while allowed to cycle over them using the road.

brouter does take bicycle=no/dismount in node context into account, see https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265 and that gives a moderate penalty as the assumption is made on can unmount crossing the crossing node.

The problem with ignoring is that "bicycle=no/dismount" on highway=crossing is that it becomes use useless tag. The main data consumers of openstreetmap data are map makers (who do not care) and routers as for others the data on crossings is not complete enough for other use. So the routing perspective is an important one.

Should routers (keep) ignoring bicycle=no/dismount on a highway=crossing node?
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Richard Fairhurst


sent from a phone

> On 16. Oct 2020, at 09:32, Richard Fairhurst <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> generally bicycle=dismount should be used instead, reserving bicycle=no for those circumstances where even pushing a bike is not legal (e.g. most public footpaths in England & Wales).


most bicycle=no tags out there actually mean that you cannot ride a bike, not that you cannot have a bike in your pocket or be pushing a bike or carrying a bike in a box or on your shoulders.

I would suggest a different tag than bicycle=no for places where you cannot bring a bicycle, because otherwise you will never know which interpretation of bicycle=no was used by the mapper.

The wiki is unsure about the exact meaning, the bicycle=* page says it is about restrictions for bicycles while the access page (older) says it is about restrictions for cyclists. IMHO the most common interpretation is legality of cycling/riding a bicycle.

Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

Tagging mailing list



Oct 18, 2020, 10:17 by [hidden email]:


sent from a phone
On 16. Oct 2020, at 09:32, Richard Fairhurst <[hidden email]> wrote:

generally bicycle=dismount should be used instead, reserving bicycle=no for those circumstances where even pushing a bike is not legal (e.g. most public footpaths in England & Wales).


most bicycle=no tags out there actually mean that you cannot ride a bike, not that you cannot have a bike in your pocket or be pushing a bike or carrying a bike in a box or on your shoulders.

I would suggest a different tag than bicycle=no for places where you cannot bring a bicycle, because otherwise you will never know which interpretation of bicycle=no was used by the mapper.
+1

At this point bicycle=no means "no cycling allowed" and trying to change meaning
would be quite hopeless.

You would need a special tag to mark which interpretation is used and resurvey all
bicycle=no cases. And at that point it is easier to have a new tag for rare "no bicycle at all
in addition to forbidding cycling"

At that point it is easier to simply invent a new tag for "no bicycle pushing".

(bicycle_pushed=no, bicycle_pushing=no and bicycle_possession=no were proposed)

 And I think at every point in OSM history, as bicycle=dismount was a duplicate of bicycle=no
The wiki is unsure about the exact meaning, the bicycle=* page says it is about restrictions for bicycles while the access page (older) says it is about restrictions for cyclists. IMHO the most common interpretation is legality of cycling/riding a bicycle.
""


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging