Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
90 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Signposts in Roles of route members

voschix


On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 19:52, Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:
The method for mapping the signposts is not quite the same as the CAI page.  Signposts are mapped as either guidepost (see e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5894712185 ) or route_marker ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5734015420 ) depending on what form the route marker takes.  Each has the role "marker" within the relation.
The CAI approach, at present at least, is to only map guideposts, but not markers.
Guideposts in the CAI scheme always have direction indications (typically destination and distance and/or walking time). Painted markers or symbols are not normally mapped.

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

Re: Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

voschix
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson


On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 15:40, Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ideally, you should not have to create gpx-s from them and you should need no ordering or routing at all, because they ARE the routes. An app or gps-device should use them as is, just tell the user what to do next. Since no app currently does that (future still has to arrive) we resort to transferring the route to them as tracks, i.e. gpx.

Now we are getting closer to the point. You are correctly saying "no app is currently doing that". So why should we sort topologically non-sortable route-relations members? We have a solution that works with existing tools on unsorted hiking/cycling routes, and that is routing with strong preference on the use of ways that are part of cycling/hiking routes.
I see the problem from the mapper's perspective (as I map a lot) and from the end-users perspective (I very often design bicycle tour routes from OSM data).
I am not a data consumer in the sense I do not write software thta uses OSM data, I am an end usere, eclusivley using the software produced by others) and I acknowledge that  my experience is limited to cycling/hiking routes. I am sure there are routes that have different problems and may need sorting, One such category are most likely public transport routes, which are used in a completely different way.

Volker


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

Re: Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Richard Fairhurst


sent from a phone

> On 19. Aug 2019, at 17:01, Richard Fairhurst <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> (I have elided most of the intermediate steps.)


and a lot of preparatory steps: you need to buy a computer, find a wall outlet to plug it in, find the power button, find an internet provider and subscribe to a plan, configure your modem, ...

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

Re: Forward/backward routes

voschix
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3


On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 15:21, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
... when the forward/backward roles do not indicate the direction of travel, as is the case with bicycle routes.

If that statement is correct I have mistagged hundreds or more km of cycle routes.
I use role=forward typically on oneway streets where bicycles are not allowed against the direction of the motorised traffic and where the opposite direction bicyle traffic on the bicycle route is using neighbouring streets for the bicycle route in the opposite direction of the route relation, but as long as the bicycle flow is in the direction of the oneway I use role forward. The only case where I would use role=backward (in a bicycle route) is when there is a contra-flow cycle lane tagged on a one-way street.

Similarly when a bicycle route include roundabouts (in that case I split the roundabout and use two "role=forward" segments to carry the bicycle route.along the roundabout.

I admit that I learned this approach from other mappers, but I am not sure it's documented in the wiki, now that I am thinking about it.

Volker



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

Re: Forward/backward routes

Kevin Kenny-3
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 6:05 PM Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 15:21, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> ... when the forward/backward roles do not indicate the direction of travel, as is the case with bicycle routes.

That was Peter Elderson, not me, so I'll defer to him for an answer to
your question.

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

Re: Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

Peter Elderson
In reply to this post by voschix

Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 15:40, Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ideally, you should not have to create gpx-s from them and you should need no ordering or routing at all, because they ARE the routes. An app or gps-device should use them as is, just tell the user what to do next. Since no app currently does that (future still has to arrive) we resort to transferring the route to them as tracks, i.e. gpx.

Now we are getting closer to the point. You are correctly saying "no app is currently doing that". So why should we sort topologically non-sortable route-relations members? We have a solution that works with existing tools on unsorted hiking/cycling routes, and that is routing with strong preference on the use of ways that are part of cycling/hiking routes.
I see the problem from the mapper's perspective (as I map a lot) and from the end-users perspective (I very often design bicycle tour routes from OSM data).
I am not a data consumer in the sense I do not write software thta uses OSM data, I am an end usere, eclusivley using the software produced by others) and I acknowledge that  my experience is limited to cycling/hiking routes. I am sure there are routes that have different problems and may need sorting, One such category are most likely public transport routes, which are used in a completely different way.

Routes in osm describe closely the routes found on the road. They are described as the chain of ways you follow. If they don’t, that should be fixed so they again reflect the situation on the road. The osm route IS the route, and it should be usable as is, without redoing the routing. If you find it necessary to do the routing again, no matter how cleverly you do that, you don’t fix the problem, you are just fixing errors at the wrong end, leaving the osm data as flawed as before. (Question: where does your weighted routing start and end?)

If you have a method of fixing the data, I would like it better if you make that avaible as a tool to enhance/ensure the quality of the osm-data, so the recorded routes can be used as the ready-to-use routes they are supposed to reflect.

Once routes are reliable for direct use, they will be used much more frequently in real applications. Osmand could use it, they now demand a linear gpx even for routes that are already known and displayed because you just can’t rely on OSM routes. If they could, exact turnbyturn instructions could be given to the user, complete with other map info, without any routing algorithm, because the route is already there.

In the current state, reliability is simply too low for direct use. If that remains the case over the next few years, mark my words, you can stop putting routes into osm, because other sources will offer far better functionality based on actually reliable data. The people who mark the ways will record changes realtime, and that will be available for users with apps near realtime. Then osm mappers who now often are faster with updates, will always be slower and they will be recording things that are already done better elsewhere (and shown on the OSM of course, just leaving out the messy data)


____________________________________________

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

Re: Forward/backward routes

Peter Elderson
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
Well, the simple version I got from bicycle route mappers is: members in the main direction have no roles. The fact that there is a role tells you it’s a way for the opposite direction, and then forward tells you the opposite travel direction goes against the mapped direction of that member way, and the backward role tells you the opposite travel direction goes with the mapped direction of the way.

I don’t see the merit of this... Who or what needs this information?  Roles should simply tell you the role the way plays in the route. Then you need only one: backward. Everything that’s not backward is the main (forward) route. Further, all members without a role should add up to one linear chain. All members with a role, being the deviations for the opposite direction, that could be a lot of small chains and even single ways. I am sure data users have means to determine which parts of the forward chain should be used reversely to produce the complete route for opposite direction. Maybe the order of the ways is a clue?

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 20 aug. 2019 om 00:28 heeft Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 6:05 PM Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 15:21, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> ... when the forward/backward roles do not indicate the direction of travel, as is the case with bicycle routes.
>
> That was Peter Elderson, not me, so I'll defer to him for an answer to
> your question.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Forward/backward routes

Paul Johnson-3
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 6:23 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well, the simple version I got from bicycle route mappers is: members in the main direction have no roles. The fact that there is a role tells you it’s a way for the opposite direction, and then forward tells you the opposite travel direction goes against the mapped direction of that member way, and the backward role tells you the opposite travel direction goes with the mapped direction of the way.

If the way is traversable as part of the route in both directions, then this is correct.  If the route only applies to one direction, then you do need to specify forward or backward.

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

Re: Forward/backward routes

Peter Elderson

Op 20 aug. 2019 om 01:44 heeft Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 6:23 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well, the simple version I got from bicycle route mappers is: members in the main direction have no roles. The fact that there is a role tells you it’s a way for the opposite direction, and then forward tells you the opposite travel direction goes against the mapped direction of that member way, and the backward role tells you the opposite travel direction goes with the mapped direction of the way.

If the way is traversable as part of the route in both directions, then this is correct.  If the route only applies to one direction, then you do need to specify forward or backward.

Then, the roles forward and backward may both apply to ways in both travel directions? And then there is traffic direction, which is also not the same as mapped direction, and may be different for different transport modes... 




_______________________________________________
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: Forward/backward routes

Paul Johnson-3


On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:29 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Op 20 aug. 2019 om 01:44 heeft Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 6:23 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well, the simple version I got from bicycle route mappers is: members in the main direction have no roles. The fact that there is a role tells you it’s a way for the opposite direction, and then forward tells you the opposite travel direction goes against the mapped direction of that member way, and the backward role tells you the opposite travel direction goes with the mapped direction of the way.

If the way is traversable as part of the route in both directions, then this is correct.  If the route only applies to one direction, then you do need to specify forward or backward.

Then, the roles forward and backward may both apply to ways in both travel directions? And then there is traffic direction, which is also not the same as mapped direction, and may be different for different transport modes... 

If it applies in both directions, then no role is necessary.  This is how routes can work regardless of which way the way faces or even it's oneway status if various modes can go against the oneway. 

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

Re: Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

Warin
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson
On 18/08/19 00:07, Peter Elderson wrote:

> In this case, I do NOT want to go from A to B. I want to do the hike,
> that is the route, exactly as it is specified OSM. Those ways, in the
> exact order. I want my smartphone or garmin to guide me exactly along
> those ways, which were carefully picked when the route was entered
> into OSM.
>
> If that can't be done directly, I want to get an export that I can
> feed to my device or app, so it can recreate the route exactly,
> without adding, weighing, guessing or rerouting anything.
>
> When I'm planning a hike, I want the software to start with the exact
> OSM route, not a rerouted version.

It may be possible...
Each node alone the OSM route would be a waypoint for your Garmin device
as a route. There will be lots of waypoints!
You would need a OSM map on the Garmin device.

That may work... I am not certain if voice prompts would work, but the
gpx file will be large, there may be too many waypoints for you device
to handle.
The device will still be routing .. but between the nodes of the way
there will be no difference between the OSM map and the route.

Because of the large number of waypoints I'd think most people will not
do this. If you chose to do it Peter, good luck.


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

Re: Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

Peter Elderson
That is what I do, and what an growing number of hiking people do: turn a route into a gpx, load the gpx into an app or device, which then routes along the gpx using all the nodes as waypoints. It works, and it recreates the exact route if the map is exctly the same as the original. And if the gpx is linear and without ordering problems. 
And its crazy. Because the route is there to begin with, ready in OSM. 

I still don't know how else to feed a pre-existing route to a garmin. If it doesn't take the route from the map, and it doesn't take a gpx, how does the device know where to go?

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 20 aug. 2019 om 05:49 schreef Warin <[hidden email]>:
On 18/08/19 00:07, Peter Elderson wrote:
> In this case, I do NOT want to go from A to B. I want to do the hike,
> that is the route, exactly as it is specified OSM. Those ways, in the
> exact order. I want my smartphone or garmin to guide me exactly along
> those ways, which were carefully picked when the route was entered
> into OSM.
>
> If that can't be done directly, I want to get an export that I can
> feed to my device or app, so it can recreate the route exactly,
> without adding, weighing, guessing or rerouting anything.
>
> When I'm planning a hike, I want the software to start with the exact
> OSM route, not a rerouted version.

It may be possible...
Each node alone the OSM route would be a waypoint for your Garmin device
as a route. There will be lots of waypoints!
You would need a OSM map on the Garmin device.

That may work... I am not certain if voice prompts would work, but the
gpx file will be large, there may be too many waypoints for you device
to handle.
The device will still be routing .. but between the nodes of the way
there will be no difference between the OSM map and the route.

Because of the large number of waypoints I'd think most people will not
do this. If you chose to do it Peter, good luck.


_______________________________________________
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: Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

Warin
The longest local route to me that I have worked on is over 5,000 km long. I am certain that would not fit on my GPS as a route using this method.

To reduce the gpx file it would be better to use the nodes where the route changes from one way to another or where the way ends/starts. This would leave the GPS to figure out that the internal map has a way between those points and can use it That should be less way points. But even then on my 5,000 km route it would be far too big for my old GPS as one route. That is ok .. I'd separate it into bits.


On 20/08/19 15:59, Peter Elderson wrote:
That is what I do, and what an growing number of hiking people do: turn a route into a gpx, load the gpx into an app or device, which then routes along the gpx using all the nodes as waypoints. It works, and it recreates the exact route if the map is exctly the same as the original. And if the gpx is linear and without ordering problems. 
And its crazy. Because the route is there to begin with, ready in OSM. 

I still don't know how else to feed a pre-existing route to a garmin. If it doesn't take the route from the map, and it doesn't take a gpx, how does the device know where to go?

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 20 aug. 2019 om 05:49 schreef Warin <[hidden email]>:
On 18/08/19 00:07, Peter Elderson wrote:
> In this case, I do NOT want to go from A to B. I want to do the hike,
> that is the route, exactly as it is specified OSM. Those ways, in the
> exact order. I want my smartphone or garmin to guide me exactly along
> those ways, which were carefully picked when the route was entered
> into OSM.
>
> If that can't be done directly, I want to get an export that I can
> feed to my device or app, so it can recreate the route exactly,
> without adding, weighing, guessing or rerouting anything.
>
> When I'm planning a hike, I want the software to start with the exact
> OSM route, not a rerouted version.

It may be possible...
Each node alone the OSM route would be a waypoint for your Garmin device
as a route. There will be lots of waypoints!
You would need a OSM map on the Garmin device.

That may work... I am not certain if voice prompts would work, but the
gpx file will be large, there may be too many waypoints for you device
to handle.
The device will still be routing .. but between the nodes of the way
there will be no difference between the OSM map and the route.

Because of the large number of waypoints I'd think most people will not
do this. If you chose to do it Peter, good luck.


_______________________________________________
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: Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

Peter Elderson
And that is a reason why routes can be nested, so you can use the sections as routes of their own. I would still like to know how else to feed an OSM-route to a garmin or app if not by converting it to gpx so it can reroute along the points in the track to produce exactly the original route.

Mvg Peter Elderson

Op 20 aug. 2019 om 08:13 heeft Warin <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

The longest local route to me that I have worked on is over 5,000 km long. I am certain that would not fit on my GPS as a route using this method.

To reduce the gpx file it would be better to use the nodes where the route changes from one way to another or where the way ends/starts. This would leave the GPS to figure out that the internal map has a way between those points and can use it That should be less way points. But even then on my 5,000 km route it would be far too big for my old GPS as one route. That is ok .. I'd separate it into bits.


On 20/08/19 15:59, Peter Elderson wrote:
That is what I do, and what an growing number of hiking people do: turn a route into a gpx, load the gpx into an app or device, which then routes along the gpx using all the nodes as waypoints. It works, and it recreates the exact route if the map is exctly the same as the original. And if the gpx is linear and without ordering problems. 
And its crazy. Because the route is there to begin with, ready in OSM. 

I still don't know how else to feed a pre-existing route to a garmin. If it doesn't take the route from the map, and it doesn't take a gpx, how does the device know where to go?

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 20 aug. 2019 om 05:49 schreef Warin <[hidden email]>:
On 18/08/19 00:07, Peter Elderson wrote:
> In this case, I do NOT want to go from A to B. I want to do the hike,
> that is the route, exactly as it is specified OSM. Those ways, in the
> exact order. I want my smartphone or garmin to guide me exactly along
> those ways, which were carefully picked when the route was entered
> into OSM.
>
> If that can't be done directly, I want to get an export that I can
> feed to my device or app, so it can recreate the route exactly,
> without adding, weighing, guessing or rerouting anything.
>
> When I'm planning a hike, I want the software to start with the exact
> OSM route, not a rerouted version.

It may be possible...
Each node alone the OSM route would be a waypoint for your Garmin device
as a route. There will be lots of waypoints!
You would need a OSM map on the Garmin device.

That may work... I am not certain if voice prompts would work, but the
gpx file will be large, there may be too many waypoints for you device
to handle.
The device will still be routing .. but between the nodes of the way
there will be no difference between the OSM map and the route.

Because of the large number of waypoints I'd think most people will not
do this. If you chose to do it Peter, good luck.


_______________________________________________
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

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

Re: Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

s8evq
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson


On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 01:00:47 +0200, Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  The osm route IS the route, and it should be usable as is, without redoing the routing.



Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but couldn't you do that in OsmAnd? Take the GPX from a hiking route and import in Osmand. Set your destination in Osmand, start navigation, and under options, go for "GPX route - Choose track file to follow" and choose your imported GPX. OsmAnd wil give you turn by turn instructions, along the GPX.
(I have to be honest, doesn't work 100% perfectly. Perhaps bad quality GPX? I didn't test it enough.)


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

Re: Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

s8evq
In reply to this post by voschix
I would like to briefly add my opinion on the sorting of relations question:

To be clear: my experience is mostly with short roundtrip hiking/walking relations in Flanders (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Local_Walking_Routes_Flanders#Local_Walking_Routes_in_Flanders). I hardly every work on public transport relations.

-  Sarah wrote here that currently about 15% is not sorted. I can agree with that. Most relations I encounter are already correctly sorted.

- I can not agree with Peter and others that sorted relations easily break. I hardly ever see somebody messed up a short walking relation. Once they are properly entered, they stay correct for the most time.

- There is one small reason in favor of sorting walking relations: If the walk has signs, but the signs are only visible when doing the walk in a certain direction, it could be handy to know what direction that is. (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:signed_direction) We had a discussion about this previously. We couldn't come up with any solution for this, besides sorting the relation. (sorting is not perfect either, as Kevin Kenny pointed out (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-March/043882.html)

- The argument that requiring sorting would burden that mappers.... Personally I don't find that it's a lot of work, and it makes the relation easier to handle. More benefit with little additional work. If we have sorted routes: great, that's a little bit of extra info. If we don't: no problem either.


On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 23:36:37 +0200, Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 15:40, Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Ideally, you should not have to create gpx-s from them and you should need
> > no ordering or routing at all, because they ARE the routes. An app or
> > gps-device should use them as is, just tell the user what to do next. Since
> > no app currently does that (future still has to arrive) we resort to
> > transferring the route to them as tracks, i.e. gpx.
> >
>
> Now we are getting closer to the point. You are correctly saying "no app is
> currently doing that". So why should we sort topologically non-sortable
> route-relations members? We have a solution that works with existing tools
> on unsorted hiking/cycling routes, and that is routing with strong
> preference on the use of ways that are part of cycling/hiking routes.
> I see the problem from the mapper's perspective (as I map a lot) and from
> the end-users perspective (I very often design bicycle tour routes from OSM
> data).
> I am not a data consumer in the sense I do not write software thta uses OSM
> data, I am an end usere, eclusivley using the software produced by others)
> and I acknowledge that  my experience is limited to cycling/hiking routes.
> I am sure there are routes that have different problems and may need
> sorting, One such category are most likely public transport routes, which
> are used in a completely different way.
>
> Volker
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
Kevin Kenny wrote:
> There's also something to be said for using the ugly editors to
> prove the concept, because at this point, we don't yet know how
> to do everything, much less how to make it novice-friendly! The
> exception is simple linear routes, and Sarah or I can give you
> algorithms - or at least heuristics - for maintaining sort order
> on those.

I have an algorithm like that too - it skeletonises dual carriageways and
roundabouts, hops over small jumps, and so on. But that's very different
from the steps to implement in an online editor, which has many more
constraints. (P2 doesn't have access to the full set of JTS/PostGIS tools,
for example!) _If_ the issues can be identified clearly and the realistic
steps to fix them enumerated, then we're getting somewhere.

> I do want editors minimally to observe the 'don't break the route'
> principle. About 80% of the broken-route problem can be solved
> simply by, "when splitting a way, both the pieces become members
> of any route relations in which the original way appeared, with the
> same role if one is specified, preferably preserving continuity if
> either or both endpoints was shared with the neighbouring way
> in the relation." At least iD, Meerkartor and JOSM all do that.

As does P2, I believe (I didn't write that bit of code) - iD's code might
actually be based on P2's. That does make me wonder how much of a problem
this is in reality if the four major desktop editors already support it.

> For what it's worth, I think that the "route editing is complex"
> problem partly drives the 'startled warthog' and '1980s throwback'
> issues. In my experience, newer and prettier UI's try so very hard
> to be pretty and novice-friendly that in many cases, they simply
> reach a ceiling of complexity beyond which they can't cope or
> become an obstacle to the power user.

Generally I tend to think that a data model that can't be edited with a
simple UI is a bad data model; and that "power users" are a curse on
Wikipedia and rapidly becoming the same in OSM, especially when their main
role is to generate abstruse content as self-gratification but which no-one
will ever actually consume. But that's just me being a grumpy old man too.
:)

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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

JOSM is the A10 of editors ? (was: Roles of route members)

Andrew Davidson-3
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
Thank you gentlemen, that has made my day. Maybe JOSM is the A10 of
editors. It's old, it gets no respect, and it's as ugly as sin. Yet it
still does the job better than everything else.

Not sure what type of planes the other editors are.


On 20/8/19 1:55 am, Kevin Kenny wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:10 AM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> And say what you like about Warthogs being ugly, the Fairchild Republic A-10
>> Thunderbolt II (aka Warthog) was a very effective war plane, both in kill power and
>> survivability.  Please don't make JOSM's UI seem better than it is by comparing it
>> to the Warthog.
>
> If we're talking about the aircraft, you're right that the A-10 is an
> amazing aircraft; even now, the USAF doesn't have anything that does
> its mission nearly as well as it does. (Of course, close air support
> isn't nearly glamourous enough for the flyboys. The Army would love to
> take over the A-10 or develop a successor, but isn't allowed
> fixed-wing aircraft in its ambit.)
>
> If we're talking about the beast, beauty is in the eye of the
> beholder. Gentlemen warthogs appear to find lady warthogs quite
> attractive, since there seems still to be no shortage of warthog
> piglets.
>


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

Re: Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

Peter Elderson
In reply to this post by s8evq
That is exactly what I described: you have a route i.e. a chain of ways to follow. But OsmAnd cannot do that! It can access the route and show it on the map, but it does not use it for navigation. So you have to first turn it into a string of points (gpx), losing the connection to the map and the ways. Then import that into OsmAnd. The OsmAnd combines that with the map again, to turn the track (list of points) back into a route (list of ways you began with) for navigation. Am I the only one to find this a bit odd?

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 20 aug. 2019 om 09:25 schreef s8evq <[hidden email]>:


On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 01:00:47 +0200, Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  The osm route IS the route, and it should be usable as is, without redoing the routing.



Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but couldn't you do that in OsmAnd? Take the GPX from a hiking route and import in Osmand. Set your destination in Osmand, start navigation, and under options, go for "GPX route - Choose track file to follow" and choose your imported GPX. OsmAnd wil give you turn by turn instructions, along the GPX.
(I have to be honest, doesn't work 100% perfectly. Perhaps bad quality GPX? I didn't test it enough.)


_______________________________________________
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: JOSM is the A10 of editors ? (was: Roles of route members)

Warin
In reply to this post by Andrew Davidson-3
On 20/08/19 19:14, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> Thank you gentlemen, that has made my day. Maybe JOSM is the A10 of
> editors. It's old, it gets no respect, and it's as ugly as sin. Yet it
> still does the job better than everything else.
>
> Not sure what type of planes the other editors are.
>
>

For training .. Tiger Moth.



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12345