Ferry Routes mapping in NSW

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

Ferry Routes mapping in NSW

Sigurjón Gísli Rúnarsson

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

Re: Ferry Routes mapping in NSW

Andrew Harvey-3
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]


On 6 August 2018 at 23:20, Sigurjón Gísli Rúnarsson <[hidden email]> 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
[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: Ferry Routes mapping in NSW

Sigurjón Gísli Rúnarsson

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 – 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 <[hidden email]> 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]


On 6 August 2018 at 23:20, Sigurjón Gísli Rúnarsson <[hidden email]> 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
[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: Ferry Routes mapping in NSW

Warin
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 – 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 <[hidden email]> 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]


On 6 August 2018 at 23:20, Sigurjón Gísli Rúnarsson <[hidden email]> 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
[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: Ferry Routes mapping in NSW

Simon Slater
In reply to this post by Sigurjón Gísli Rúnarsson
On Monday, 26 November 2018 11:43:27 AM AEDT Sigurjón Gísli Rúnarsson 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]

I made changes to this ferry route https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/627090817 
a while ago, but OSRM is still not routing traffic across the punt.  Can
anyone see what I missed?

--
Regards
Simon Slater

Registered Linux User #463789 @ http://linuxcounter.net

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

Re: Ferry Routes mapping in NSW

Simon Slater
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 3:07:19 PM AEDT Michael Collinson wrote:
> The nodes on each side are not actually joined to the highway, just
> overlapping.

All good.  Routing goes via the punt now.
--
Regards
Simon Slater

Registered Linux User #463789 @ http://linuxcounter.net

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

Re: Ferry Routes mapping in NSW

Andrew Harvey-3
In reply to this post by Sigurjón Gísli Rúnarsson
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 11:43, Sigurjón Gísli Rúnarsson
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> 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 – 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.

I'm in favour of using ferry route relations in Sydney Harbour, it
allows us to capture the full range of ferry services (including
private and public services) which share the same "ways" without the
issues from overlapping ways. As you've pointed out this is well
documented at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dferry

It seems the branching of ways in the open water that results from
mapping ferry routes as relations is causing issues like
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=-33.8711%2C151.2621%3B-33.7997%2C151.2857#map=14/-33.8421/151.2726
which is not a path that you can actually take.

I want to point out that railways have the same issue, where there are
switches like at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/143758897 a routing
engine which doesn't account for route relations will happily take
that switch even though there may be no public transport routes which
take it (it might only be there for non-scheduled services).
Ultimately a routing engine is only going to get so far without taking
into account the route relations and service timetable, so I don't
think that zigzag is a deal breaker.

> 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.

You're suggestion of using route=ferry_services on the way actually
makes sense and would fix the routing issue. On the other hand I see
the routing taking branches when route relations exist as a routing
engine issue, and something that could be addressed there. I think
that's probably a better solution, as the tagging remains the same, as
moving to route=ferry_services is a big breaking change that would be
hard to push through as a global tagging standard.

While we're talking about ferries,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/201884898 has to be my favourite
ferry route in OSM: "route=ferry + description=Row yourself using
supplied boats".

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

Re: Ferry Routes mapping in NSW

Warin
On 06/12/18 14:44, Andrew Harvey wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 11:43, Sigurjón Gísli Rúnarsson
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 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 – 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.
> I'm in favour of using ferry route relations in Sydney Harbour, it
> allows us to capture the full range of ferry services (including
> private and public services) which share the same "ways" without the
> issues from overlapping ways. As you've pointed out this is well
> documented at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dferry
>
> It seems the branching of ways in the open water that results from
> mapping ferry routes as relations is causing issues like
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=-33.8711%2C151.2621%3B-33.7997%2C151.2857#map=14/-33.8421/151.2726
> which is not a path that you can actually take.
>
> I want to point out that railways have the same issue, where there are
> switches like at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/143758897 a routing
> engine which doesn't account for route relations will happily take
> that switch even though there may be no public transport routes which
> take it (it might only be there for non-scheduled services).
> Ultimately a routing engine is only going to get so far without taking
> into account the route relations and service timetable, so I don't
> think that zigzag is a deal breaker.
>
>> 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.
> You're suggestion of using route=ferry_services on the way actually
> makes sense and would fix the routing issue. On the other hand I see
> the routing taking branches when route relations exist as a routing
> engine issue, and something that could be addressed there. I think
> that's probably a better solution, as the tagging remains the same, as
> moving to route=ferry_services is a big breaking change that would be
> hard to push through as a global tagging standard.
>
> While we're talking about ferries,
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/201884898 has to be my favourite
> ferry route in OSM: "route=ferry + description=Row yourself using
> supplied boats".

For those not familiar with that 'ferry'.

There are 2 boats - one on either side.

You row one boat across with your gear.

Then you row back - towing the other boat.

You then row across with one boat to complete your crossing, while leaving a boat on each side.

To accomplish a simple crossing = rowing across 3 times.


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

Re: Ferry Routes mapping in NSW

Michael-7
In reply to this post by Andrew Harvey-3


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2018 1:45 PM
> To: OSM Australian Talk List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Ferry Routes mapping in NSW


> It seems the branching of ways in the open water that results from mapping
> ferry routes as relations is causing issues like
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=
> -33.8711%2C151.2621%3B-33.7997%2C151.2857#map=14/-33.8421/151.2726
> which is not a path that you can actually take.

This routing error is from having foot=yes on a way across the water.

If the foot=yes is only on the relations used for the ferry routes than it should go away.


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