type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

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

type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

Gerd Petermann
Hi all,

I've noticed that mkgmap still checks these relations for correctness but they have no influence on the created map.
Part of the code that handled them was removed with r3649:
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev=3649

If your map was created with r3743 or later, please check if you find a crossing with such a relation which where routing
hints are wrong. In that case I would try to add code for the support, else some unused code can be removed.

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

Re: type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

Gerd Petermann
I found one that might be interesting:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/406379

If I got that right the intention was to tell mkgmap that
it should change the bearing (heading) values in the map so that the Garmin algo doesn't produce a
hint like "Turn left onto Calle Botánico Rivas Mateos" when travelling from
way 24647941 (Calle José Luis Cotallo) to way 24311294 (Calle Botánico Rivas Mateos).
(this is what happens now)

What would you want instead?
@Carlos: You have created that relation in 2010, maybe you remember?

Gerd



Gerd Petermann wrote
Hi all,

I've noticed that mkgmap still checks these relations for correctness but they have no influence on the created map.
Part of the code that handled them was removed with r3649:
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev=3649

If your map was created with r3743 or later, please check if you find a crossing with such a relation which where routing
hints are wrong. In that case I would try to add code for the support, else some unused code can be removed.

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

Re: type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

News-3
If I remember correctly the idea of a through_route was first raised by
Mark Burton a few years ago. It was intended to solve the problem of
TOTSO's
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_road_transport_terms#TOTSO)
which is a situation where you have to turn off the carriageway you are
currently travelling on in order to stay on the same named road. In
these circumstances it is (almost) impossible for any routing engine to
deduce that it needs to give you a routing hint in order for you to stay
on the road that you are currently on. At the time I had a couple of
these near me where I knew that my Garmin was effectively missing a turn
and hence you would end up travelling in the wrong direction. Adding a
through_route at these places fixes this problem.

There is also a secondary use where a road e.g. Smith Road, bends 90
degrees and you are sometimes told to turn left/right to stay on Smith
Road even though there is no turning

A few years ago I tried to get this accepted into the list of official
tags however the vote resulted in a draw and I didn't have chance to
pursue it further.

I have now moved and there are none currently near me that I could use
to check if this is still working

See also......
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2013q2/017429.html
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2010q1/007028.html

Thanks

Paul

On 01/10/2017 08:31 AM, Gerd Petermann wrote:

> I found one that might be interesting:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/406379
>
> If I got that right the intention was to tell mkgmap that
> it should change the bearing (heading) values in the map so that the Garmin
> algo doesn't produce a
> hint like "Turn left onto Calle Botánico Rivas Mateos" when travelling from
> way 24647941 (Calle José Luis Cotallo) to way 24311294 (Calle Botánico Rivas
> Mateos).
> (this is what happens now)
>
> What would you want instead?
> @Carlos: You have created that relation in 2010, maybe you remember?
>
> Gerd
>
>
>
>
> Gerd Petermann wrote
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've noticed that mkgmap still checks these relations for correctness but
>> they have no influence on the created map.
>> Part of the code that handled them was removed with r3649:
>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev=3649
>>
>> If your map was created with r3743 or later, please check if you find a
>> crossing with such a relation which where routing
>> hints are wrong. In that case I would try to add code for the support,
>> else some unused code can be removed.
>>
>> Gerd
>> _______________________________________________
>> mkgmap-dev mailing list
>
>> mkgmap-dev@.org
>
>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/type-through-route-relations-and-mkgmap-r3743-tp5888958p5889077.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: type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

Gerd Petermann
Hi Paul,

sorry , I still have no idea what the wanted effect is. If you think that my example is tagged correctly,
in what case should it change the routing hints and to what?
Or maybe point me to another example.

thanks,
Gerd
________________________________________
Von: mkgmap-dev <[hidden email]> im Auftrag von News <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017 11:55:06
An: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

If I remember correctly the idea of a through_route was first raised by
Mark Burton a few years ago. It was intended to solve the problem of
TOTSO's
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_road_transport_terms#TOTSO)
which is a situation where you have to turn off the carriageway you are
currently travelling on in order to stay on the same named road. In
these circumstances it is (almost) impossible for any routing engine to
deduce that it needs to give you a routing hint in order for you to stay
on the road that you are currently on. At the time I had a couple of
these near me where I knew that my Garmin was effectively missing a turn
and hence you would end up travelling in the wrong direction. Adding a
through_route at these places fixes this problem.

There is also a secondary use where a road e.g. Smith Road, bends 90
degrees and you are sometimes told to turn left/right to stay on Smith
Road even though there is no turning

A few years ago I tried to get this accepted into the list of official
tags however the vote resulted in a draw and I didn't have chance to
pursue it further.

I have now moved and there are none currently near me that I could use
to check if this is still working

See also......
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2013q2/017429.html
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2010q1/007028.html

Thanks

Paul

On 01/10/2017 08:31 AM, Gerd Petermann wrote:

> I found one that might be interesting:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/406379
>
> If I got that right the intention was to tell mkgmap that
> it should change the bearing (heading) values in the map so that the Garmin
> algo doesn't produce a
> hint like "Turn left onto Calle Botánico Rivas Mateos" when travelling from
> way 24647941 (Calle José Luis Cotallo) to way 24311294 (Calle Botánico Rivas
> Mateos).
> (this is what happens now)
>
> What would you want instead?
> @Carlos: You have created that relation in 2010, maybe you remember?
>
> Gerd
>
>
>
>
> Gerd Petermann wrote
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've noticed that mkgmap still checks these relations for correctness but
>> they have no influence on the created map.
>> Part of the code that handled them was removed with r3649:
>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev=3649
>>
>> If your map was created with r3743 or later, please check if you find a
>> crossing with such a relation which where routing
>> hints are wrong. In that case I would try to add code for the support,
>> else some unused code can be removed.
>>
>> Gerd
>> _______________________________________________
>> mkgmap-dev mailing list
>
>> mkgmap-dev@.org
>
>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/type-through-route-relations-and-mkgmap-r3743-tp5888958p5889077.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
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

News-3
The wanted effect is to fix incorrect route hints when the road layout
in OSM is correct but ambiguous. Personally I see a through_route as
being no different to no_left_turn or no_right_turn or similar
restrictions in that it gives a routing engine the full information it
needs to be able to make correct decisions and issue correct
instructions. If we didn't add a no_left_turn at a junction where you
can't turn left how is a routing engine to know that? It's purpose
therefore is to issue a turn warning when you need to turn off a highway
or to not give a turn warning when one isn't needed. The proposal can
still be found at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/through_route but
I'll try to explain it here

Consider this

A     B
  \    |
   \   | A682
A56\  |
     \ |
      \|C
       |
       |
   A56 |
       |
       D

This is a real world example and is the one I used in the proposal
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/53.68901/-2.30585). The lanes here
are marked as the (hopefully) attached jpg. Therefore if you're heading
north on the A56 and want to stay on the A56 you have to make a left
turn. Without the through_route relation a routing engine probably can't
determine that you need to make a left turn at this point as presumably
the angle between this and the A682 is too small. Before I added a
through_route at this point then if I was driving north on the A56 and
wanted to head towards Accrington (staying on the A56 but needing to
make a left turn) then I received no indication that I needed to turn
left at this junction and therefore would end up in Rawtenstall.

Conversely if you're heading north on the A56 and want to head towards
Rawtenstall then without the through_route you are told to stay right to
join the A682. This is incorrect as you do not need to keep right you
just need to continue in the lane you are in but not as bad as missing a
turn.

In short....
If you're travelling D->C->A then without a through_route you are NOT
told to turn left when you should be even though that's the way the
route is taking
If you're travelling D->C->B then without a through_route you are told
to stay right (or turn right, I can't remember which) when you need to
just keep going along the carriageway you're on

There is another example here
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/53.67505/-2.30756). If you're
travelling north on the B6527 (Market Street) and want to stay on the
B6257 (Blackburn Road) then you have to turn left otherwise you will end
up on Burnley Road. The road markings here indicate that Market Street
onto Burnley Road is the through_route and therefore if your route keeps
you on the B6527 you need to turn left at this junction

All the above are corrected with a through_route

The second use for this is below but to me this is of lesser importance

  A
  |
  |
  |
  |
B------------D
  |
  |
  |
  |
  C

C->B->D is Smith Road for example. B->A is Jones Road.
The road markings indicate that at point B Smith Lane makes a 90 degree
turn so anyone driving along here (C->B->D) would automatically follow
the road. However in this case you may be told to turn right onto Smith
Road. Adding a through_route for C->B->D tells a routing engine that it
only needs to issue a turn warning if you are turning onto Jones Road

I hope that helps but if not then please ask

Thanks

Paul

On 01/10/2017 11:22 AM, Gerd Petermann wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> sorry , I still have no idea what the wanted effect is. If you think that my example is tagged correctly,
> in what case should it change the routing hints and to what?
> Or maybe point me to another example.
>
> thanks,
> Gerd
> ________________________________________
> Von: mkgmap-dev <[hidden email]> im Auftrag von News <[hidden email]>
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017 11:55:06
> An: [hidden email]
> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743
>
> If I remember correctly the idea of a through_route was first raised by
> Mark Burton a few years ago. It was intended to solve the problem of
> TOTSO's
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_road_transport_terms#TOTSO)
> which is a situation where you have to turn off the carriageway you are
> currently travelling on in order to stay on the same named road. In
> these circumstances it is (almost) impossible for any routing engine to
> deduce that it needs to give you a routing hint in order for you to stay
> on the road that you are currently on. At the time I had a couple of
> these near me where I knew that my Garmin was effectively missing a turn
> and hence you would end up travelling in the wrong direction. Adding a
> through_route at these places fixes this problem.
>
> There is also a secondary use where a road e.g. Smith Road, bends 90
> degrees and you are sometimes told to turn left/right to stay on Smith
> Road even though there is no turning
>
> A few years ago I tried to get this accepted into the list of official
> tags however the vote resulted in a draw and I didn't have chance to
> pursue it further.
>
> I have now moved and there are none currently near me that I could use
> to check if this is still working
>
> See also......
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2013q2/017429.html
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2010q1/007028.html
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul
>
> On 01/10/2017 08:31 AM, Gerd Petermann wrote:
>> I found one that might be interesting:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/406379
>>
>> If I got that right the intention was to tell mkgmap that
>> it should change the bearing (heading) values in the map so that the Garmin
>> algo doesn't produce a
>> hint like "Turn left onto Calle Botánico Rivas Mateos" when travelling from
>> way 24647941 (Calle José Luis Cotallo) to way 24311294 (Calle Botánico Rivas
>> Mateos).
>> (this is what happens now)
>>
>> What would you want instead?
>> @Carlos: You have created that relation in 2010, maybe you remember?
>>
>> Gerd
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Gerd Petermann wrote
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I've noticed that mkgmap still checks these relations for correctness but
>>> they have no influence on the created map.
>>> Part of the code that handled them was removed with r3649:
>>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev=3649
>>>
>>> If your map was created with r3743 or later, please check if you find a
>>> crossing with such a relation which where routing
>>> hints are wrong. In that case I would try to add code for the support,
>>> else some unused code can be removed.
>>>
>>> Gerd
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mkgmap-dev mailing list
>>
>>> mkgmap-dev@.org
>>
>>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/type-through-route-relations-and-mkgmap-r3743-tp5888958p5889077.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
> _______________________________________________
> 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

through_route.jpg (19K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

Gerd Petermann
Hi Paul,

thanks for the details.
I've created maps for the two locations with r3746. Note that the type=through_route have no effect on the map in this version.
The results:
ACD gives "Keep left onto  A56"
ACB gives "Keep right onto  A682"

The 2nd example gives "Keep left onto Blackburn Road (B6527)"

I think these hints are completely okay. For the last example there is a  "Turn right onto Smith Lane" instruction.
I'd prefer a "Keep right onto Smith Lane"  at this point, but the important part is that there is a routing hint.

So, I think it is okay when mkgmap continues to ignore these relations as the img format has no native support for them,
the only thing mkgmap can do is to store "wrong" heading" values, e.g. for the last case it could change the initial heading of
B-D from 90 degrees to 15 degrees so that  a "Keep right onto Smith Lane"  is more likely, but that would also mean a slightly
wrong  time calculation (no penalty for the sharp turn).

Gerd
________________________________________
Von: mkgmap-dev <[hidden email]> im Auftrag von News <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017 15:19:16
An: Development list for mkgmap
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

The wanted effect is to fix incorrect route hints when the road layout
in OSM is correct but ambiguous. Personally I see a through_route as
being no different to no_left_turn or no_right_turn or similar
restrictions in that it gives a routing engine the full information it
needs to be able to make correct decisions and issue correct
instructions. If we didn't add a no_left_turn at a junction where you
can't turn left how is a routing engine to know that? It's purpose
therefore is to issue a turn warning when you need to turn off a highway
or to not give a turn warning when one isn't needed. The proposal can
still be found at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/through_route but
I'll try to explain it here

Consider this

A     B
  \    |
   \   | A682
A56\  |
     \ |
      \|C
       |
       |
   A56 |
       |
       D

This is a real world example and is the one I used in the proposal
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/53.68901/-2.30585). The lanes here
are marked as the (hopefully) attached jpg. Therefore if you're heading
north on the A56 and want to stay on the A56 you have to make a left
turn. Without the through_route relation a routing engine probably can't
determine that you need to make a left turn at this point as presumably
the angle between this and the A682 is too small. Before I added a
through_route at this point then if I was driving north on the A56 and
wanted to head towards Accrington (staying on the A56 but needing to
make a left turn) then I received no indication that I needed to turn
left at this junction and therefore would end up in Rawtenstall.

Conversely if you're heading north on the A56 and want to head towards
Rawtenstall then without the through_route you are told to stay right to
join the A682. This is incorrect as you do not need to keep right you
just need to continue in the lane you are in but not as bad as missing a
turn.

In short....
If you're travelling D->C->A then without a through_route you are NOT
told to turn left when you should be even though that's the way the
route is taking
If you're travelling D->C->B then without a through_route you are told
to stay right (or turn right, I can't remember which) when you need to
just keep going along the carriageway you're on

There is another example here
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/53.67505/-2.30756). If you're
travelling north on the B6527 (Market Street) and want to stay on the
B6257 (Blackburn Road) then you have to turn left otherwise you will end
up on Burnley Road. The road markings here indicate that Market Street
onto Burnley Road is the through_route and therefore if your route keeps
you on the B6527 you need to turn left at this junction

All the above are corrected with a through_route

The second use for this is below but to me this is of lesser importance

  A
  |
  |
  |
  |
B------------D
  |
  |
  |
  |
  C

C->B->D is Smith Road for example. B->A is Jones Road.
The road markings indicate that at point B Smith Lane makes a 90 degree
turn so anyone driving along here (C->B->D) would automatically follow
the road. However in this case you may be told to turn right onto Smith
Road. Adding a through_route for C->B->D tells a routing engine that it
only needs to issue a turn warning if you are turning onto Jones Road

I hope that helps but if not then please ask

Thanks

Paul

On 01/10/2017 11:22 AM, Gerd Petermann wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> sorry , I still have no idea what the wanted effect is. If you think that my example is tagged correctly,
> in what case should it change the routing hints and to what?
> Or maybe point me to another example.
>
> thanks,
> Gerd
> ________________________________________
> Von: mkgmap-dev <[hidden email]> im Auftrag von News <[hidden email]>
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017 11:55:06
> An: [hidden email]
> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743
>
> If I remember correctly the idea of a through_route was first raised by
> Mark Burton a few years ago. It was intended to solve the problem of
> TOTSO's
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_road_transport_terms#TOTSO)
> which is a situation where you have to turn off the carriageway you are
> currently travelling on in order to stay on the same named road. In
> these circumstances it is (almost) impossible for any routing engine to
> deduce that it needs to give you a routing hint in order for you to stay
> on the road that you are currently on. At the time I had a couple of
> these near me where I knew that my Garmin was effectively missing a turn
> and hence you would end up travelling in the wrong direction. Adding a
> through_route at these places fixes this problem.
>
> There is also a secondary use where a road e.g. Smith Road, bends 90
> degrees and you are sometimes told to turn left/right to stay on Smith
> Road even though there is no turning
>
> A few years ago I tried to get this accepted into the list of official
> tags however the vote resulted in a draw and I didn't have chance to
> pursue it further.
>
> I have now moved and there are none currently near me that I could use
> to check if this is still working
>
> See also......
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2013q2/017429.html
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2010q1/007028.html
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul
>
> On 01/10/2017 08:31 AM, Gerd Petermann wrote:
>> I found one that might be interesting:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/406379
>>
>> If I got that right the intention was to tell mkgmap that
>> it should change the bearing (heading) values in the map so that the Garmin
>> algo doesn't produce a
>> hint like "Turn left onto Calle Botánico Rivas Mateos" when travelling from
>> way 24647941 (Calle José Luis Cotallo) to way 24311294 (Calle Botánico Rivas
>> Mateos).
>> (this is what happens now)
>>
>> What would you want instead?
>> @Carlos: You have created that relation in 2010, maybe you remember?
>>
>> Gerd
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Gerd Petermann wrote
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I've noticed that mkgmap still checks these relations for correctness but
>>> they have no influence on the created map.
>>> Part of the code that handled them was removed with r3649:
>>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev=3649
>>>
>>> If your map was created with r3743 or later, please check if you find a
>>> crossing with such a relation which where routing
>>> hints are wrong. In that case I would try to add code for the support,
>>> else some unused code can be removed.
>>>
>>> Gerd
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mkgmap-dev mailing list
>>
>>> mkgmap-dev@.org
>>
>>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/type-through-route-relations-and-mkgmap-r3743-tp5888958p5889077.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
> _______________________________________________
> 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: type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

News-3
Hi Gerd. It's been 12 months since I moved away from here so I have no
idea what the actual results are now but please see my comments inline
with the assumption that you follow the road you are on as indicated by
the road markings unless you are told to turn off which is how I was
taught to drive and have always driven

On 01/10/2017 03:04 PM, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> thanks for the details.
> I've created maps for the two locations with r3746. Note that the type=through_route have no effect on the map in this version.
> The results:
> ACD gives "Keep left onto  A56"

Personally I would prefer "Turn left". To me a "Keep left" says "stay in
the left hand lane" whereas in this situation you turn left out of the
left hand lane in order to stay on the A56. However something is  better
than nothing which is what happened previously

> ACB gives "Keep right onto  A682"

Is acceptable but technically incorrect as you can stay in the left hand
lane if you wish. There is no need for any instruction here

>
> The 2nd example gives "Keep left onto Blackburn Road (B6527)"

At this junction that is fine as the road does indeed fork

>
> I think these hints are completely okay. For the last example there is a  "Turn right onto Smith Lane" instruction.
> I'd prefer a "Keep right onto Smith Lane"  at this point, but the important part is that there is a routing hint.
>

I'd prefer nothing. The assumption is that you follow the road you are
on as indicated by the road markings unless you are told to turn off

> So, I think it is okay when mkgmap continues to ignore these relations as the img format has no native support for them,
> the only thing mkgmap can do is to store "wrong" heading" values, e.g. for the last case it could change the initial heading of
> B-D from 90 degrees to 15 degrees so that  a "Keep right onto Smith Lane"  is more likely, but that would also mean a slightly
> wrong  time calculation (no penalty for the sharp turn).

Your results seem better than the last time I used a map in this
location which didn't have the through_routes

Thanks

Paul

>
> Gerd
> ________________________________________
> Von: mkgmap-dev <[hidden email]> im Auftrag von News <[hidden email]>
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017 15:19:16
> An: Development list for mkgmap
> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743
>
> The wanted effect is to fix incorrect route hints when the road layout
> in OSM is correct but ambiguous. Personally I see a through_route as
> being no different to no_left_turn or no_right_turn or similar
> restrictions in that it gives a routing engine the full information it
> needs to be able to make correct decisions and issue correct
> instructions. If we didn't add a no_left_turn at a junction where you
> can't turn left how is a routing engine to know that? It's purpose
> therefore is to issue a turn warning when you need to turn off a highway
> or to not give a turn warning when one isn't needed. The proposal can
> still be found at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/through_route but
> I'll try to explain it here
>
> Consider this
>
> A     B
>   \    |
>    \   | A682
> A56\  |
>      \ |
>       \|C
>        |
>        |
>    A56 |
>        |
>        D
>
> This is a real world example and is the one I used in the proposal
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/53.68901/-2.30585). The lanes here
> are marked as the (hopefully) attached jpg. Therefore if you're heading
> north on the A56 and want to stay on the A56 you have to make a left
> turn. Without the through_route relation a routing engine probably can't
> determine that you need to make a left turn at this point as presumably
> the angle between this and the A682 is too small. Before I added a
> through_route at this point then if I was driving north on the A56 and
> wanted to head towards Accrington (staying on the A56 but needing to
> make a left turn) then I received no indication that I needed to turn
> left at this junction and therefore would end up in Rawtenstall.
>
> Conversely if you're heading north on the A56 and want to head towards
> Rawtenstall then without the through_route you are told to stay right to
> join the A682. This is incorrect as you do not need to keep right you
> just need to continue in the lane you are in but not as bad as missing a
> turn.
>
> In short....
> If you're travelling D->C->A then without a through_route you are NOT
> told to turn left when you should be even though that's the way the
> route is taking
> If you're travelling D->C->B then without a through_route you are told
> to stay right (or turn right, I can't remember which) when you need to
> just keep going along the carriageway you're on
>
> There is another example here
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/53.67505/-2.30756). If you're
> travelling north on the B6527 (Market Street) and want to stay on the
> B6257 (Blackburn Road) then you have to turn left otherwise you will end
> up on Burnley Road. The road markings here indicate that Market Street
> onto Burnley Road is the through_route and therefore if your route keeps
> you on the B6527 you need to turn left at this junction
>
> All the above are corrected with a through_route
>
> The second use for this is below but to me this is of lesser importance
>
>   A
>   |
>   |
>   |
>   |
> B------------D
>   |
>   |
>   |
>   |
>   C
>
> C->B->D is Smith Road for example. B->A is Jones Road.
> The road markings indicate that at point B Smith Lane makes a 90 degree
> turn so anyone driving along here (C->B->D) would automatically follow
> the road. However in this case you may be told to turn right onto Smith
> Road. Adding a through_route for C->B->D tells a routing engine that it
> only needs to issue a turn warning if you are turning onto Jones Road
>
> I hope that helps but if not then please ask
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul
>
> On 01/10/2017 11:22 AM, Gerd Petermann wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> sorry , I still have no idea what the wanted effect is. If you think that my example is tagged correctly,
>> in what case should it change the routing hints and to what?
>> Or maybe point me to another example.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Gerd
>> ________________________________________
>> Von: mkgmap-dev <[hidden email]> im Auftrag von News <[hidden email]>
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017 11:55:06
>> An: [hidden email]
>> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743
>>
>> If I remember correctly the idea of a through_route was first raised by
>> Mark Burton a few years ago. It was intended to solve the problem of
>> TOTSO's
>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_road_transport_terms#TOTSO)
>> which is a situation where you have to turn off the carriageway you are
>> currently travelling on in order to stay on the same named road. In
>> these circumstances it is (almost) impossible for any routing engine to
>> deduce that it needs to give you a routing hint in order for you to stay
>> on the road that you are currently on. At the time I had a couple of
>> these near me where I knew that my Garmin was effectively missing a turn
>> and hence you would end up travelling in the wrong direction. Adding a
>> through_route at these places fixes this problem.
>>
>> There is also a secondary use where a road e.g. Smith Road, bends 90
>> degrees and you are sometimes told to turn left/right to stay on Smith
>> Road even though there is no turning
>>
>> A few years ago I tried to get this accepted into the list of official
>> tags however the vote resulted in a draw and I didn't have chance to
>> pursue it further.
>>
>> I have now moved and there are none currently near me that I could use
>> to check if this is still working
>>
>> See also......
>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2013q2/017429.html
>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2010q1/007028.html
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On 01/10/2017 08:31 AM, Gerd Petermann wrote:
>>> I found one that might be interesting:
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/406379
>>>
>>> If I got that right the intention was to tell mkgmap that
>>> it should change the bearing (heading) values in the map so that the Garmin
>>> algo doesn't produce a
>>> hint like "Turn left onto Calle Botánico Rivas Mateos" when travelling from
>>> way 24647941 (Calle José Luis Cotallo) to way 24311294 (Calle Botánico Rivas
>>> Mateos).
>>> (this is what happens now)
>>>
>>> What would you want instead?
>>> @Carlos: You have created that relation in 2010, maybe you remember?
>>>
>>> Gerd
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gerd Petermann wrote
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I've noticed that mkgmap still checks these relations for correctness but
>>>> they have no influence on the created map.
>>>> Part of the code that handled them was removed with r3649:
>>>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev=3649
>>>>
>>>> If your map was created with r3743 or later, please check if you find a
>>>> crossing with such a relation which where routing
>>>> hints are wrong. In that case I would try to add code for the support,
>>>> else some unused code can be removed.
>>>>
>>>> Gerd
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mkgmap-dev mailing list
>>>
>>>> mkgmap-dev@.org
>>>
>>>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/type-through-route-relations-and-mkgmap-r3743-tp5888958p5889077.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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

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

Re: type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

popej
In reply to this post by Gerd Petermann
Hi,

I have tested these example too, BaseCamp gives correct messages. I can
only suggest for mkgmap to break continuity of roads at junction
indicated by "through_route". This could give more warnings from navigation.

I'm not sure how popular "through_route" is. If there are redundant
cases, break could be limited for roads type 0x01-0x03 and when
"through_route" turns with acute angle. Too many breaks would degrade
routing performance.

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

Re: type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

Gerd Petermann
Hi Andrzej,

what do you mean with "break continuity of roads" ?
My understanding is that such a relation is only used at nodes where mkgmap will create a so-called route node.

Gerd

________________________________________
Von: mkgmap-dev <[hidden email]> im Auftrag von Andrzej Popowski <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017 16:41:38
An: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

Hi,

I have tested these example too, BaseCamp gives correct messages. I can
only suggest for mkgmap to break continuity of roads at junction
indicated by "through_route". This could give more warnings from navigation.

I'm not sure how popular "through_route" is. If there are redundant
cases, break could be limited for roads type 0x01-0x03 and when
"through_route" turns with acute angle. Too many breaks would degrade
routing performance.

--
Best regards,
Andrzej
_______________________________________________
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: type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

popej
Hi Gerd,

yes, I expect a routing node at junction form "through_route". This node
could be placed in the middle of a longer road. In this case I suggest
to consider splitting road at junction/routing node.

My understanding is, that road in img can contain multiple segments
separated by nodes. Alternatively the same geographic object can be
represented by multiple roads connected at nodes. Former case gives
faster route calculation, later can give more messages when navigating.

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

Re: type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

Gerd Petermann
Hi Andrzej,

okay, got it. Some kind of Anti-RoadMerger. I'll check if that has an effect on the routing hints.

Gerd

________________________________________
Von: mkgmap-dev <[hidden email]> im Auftrag von Andrzej Popowski <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017 18:06:32
An: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

Hi Gerd,

yes, I expect a routing node at junction form "through_route". This node
could be placed in the middle of a longer road. In this case I suggest
to consider splitting road at junction/routing node.

My understanding is, that road in img can contain multiple segments
separated by nodes. Alternatively the same geographic object can be
represented by multiple roads connected at nodes. Former case gives
faster route calculation, later can give more messages when navigating.

--
Best regards,
Andrzej
_______________________________________________
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: type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

Carlos Dávila-2
In reply to this post by Gerd Petermann
Yes, that's the intended effect. But that particular relation could be
removed, because there are some wrong tagging here. Second part of Calle
José Luis Cotallo should be tagged as service, with no name. I'll change
it, but if you want to use it as test case I can wait for the commit.

El 10/01/17 a las 09:31, Gerd Petermann escribió:

> I found one that might be interesting:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/406379
>
> If I got that right the intention was to tell mkgmap that
> it should change the bearing (heading) values in the map so that the Garmin
> algo doesn't produce a
> hint like "Turn left onto Calle Botánico Rivas Mateos" when travelling from
> way 24647941 (Calle José Luis Cotallo) to way 24311294 (Calle Botánico Rivas
> Mateos).
> (this is what happens now)
>
> What would you want instead?
> @Carlos: You have created that relation in 2010, maybe you remember?
>
> Gerd
>
>
>
>
> Gerd Petermann wrote
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've noticed that mkgmap still checks these relations for correctness but
>> they have no influence on the created map.
>> Part of the code that handled them was removed with r3649:
>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev=3649
>>
>> If your map was created with r3743 or later, please check if you find a
>> crossing with such a relation which where routing
>> hints are wrong. In that case I would try to add code for the support,
>> else some unused code can be removed.
>>
>> Gerd

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

Re: type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

Gerd Petermann
Hi Carlos,

thanks, I've got the test case on my disk, you can correct the OSM data.

Gerd
________________________________________
Von: mkgmap-dev <[hidden email]> im Auftrag von Carlos Dávila <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Januar 2017 18:41:45
An: Development list for mkgmap
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

Yes, that's the intended effect. But that particular relation could be
removed, because there are some wrong tagging here. Second part of Calle
José Luis Cotallo should be tagged as service, with no name. I'll change
it, but if you want to use it as test case I can wait for the commit.

El 10/01/17 a las 09:31, Gerd Petermann escribió:

> I found one that might be interesting:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/406379
>
> If I got that right the intention was to tell mkgmap that
> it should change the bearing (heading) values in the map so that the Garmin
> algo doesn't produce a
> hint like "Turn left onto Calle Botánico Rivas Mateos" when travelling from
> way 24647941 (Calle José Luis Cotallo) to way 24311294 (Calle Botánico Rivas
> Mateos).
> (this is what happens now)
>
> What would you want instead?
> @Carlos: You have created that relation in 2010, maybe you remember?
>
> Gerd
>
>
>
>
> Gerd Petermann wrote
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've noticed that mkgmap still checks these relations for correctness but
>> they have no influence on the created map.
>> Part of the code that handled them was removed with r3649:
>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev=3649
>>
>> If your map was created with r3743 or later, please check if you find a
>> crossing with such a relation which where routing
>> hints are wrong. In that case I would try to add code for the support,
>> else some unused code can be removed.
>>
>> Gerd

_______________________________________________
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: type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

Carlos Dávila-2
I have fixed OSM data and still get "Turn left onto Calle Botánico Rivas
Mateos", so it seems through_route relation is steel needed and should
be parsed.

El 11/01/17 a las 18:48, Gerd Petermann escribió:

> Hi Carlos,
>
> thanks, I've got the test case on my disk, you can correct the OSM data.
>
> Gerd
> ________________________________________
> Von: mkgmap-dev <[hidden email]> im Auftrag von Carlos Dávila <[hidden email]>
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Januar 2017 18:41:45
> An: Development list for mkgmap
> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743
>
> Yes, that's the intended effect. But that particular relation could be
> removed, because there are some wrong tagging here. Second part of Calle
> José Luis Cotallo should be tagged as service, with no name. I'll change
> it, but if you want to use it as test case I can wait for the commit.
>
> El 10/01/17 a las 09:31, Gerd Petermann escribió:
>> I found one that might be interesting:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/406379
>>
>> If I got that right the intention was to tell mkgmap that
>> it should change the bearing (heading) values in the map so that the Garmin
>> algo doesn't produce a
>> hint like "Turn left onto Calle Botánico Rivas Mateos" when travelling from
>> way 24647941 (Calle José Luis Cotallo) to way 24311294 (Calle Botánico Rivas
>> Mateos).
>> (this is what happens now)
>>
>> What would you want instead?
>> @Carlos: You have created that relation in 2010, maybe you remember?
>>
>> Gerd
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Gerd Petermann wrote
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I've noticed that mkgmap still checks these relations for correctness but
>>> they have no influence on the created map.
>>> Part of the code that handled them was removed with r3649:
>>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev=3649
>>>
>>> If your map was created with r3743 or later, please check if you find a
>>> crossing with such a relation which where routing
>>> hints are wrong. In that case I would try to add code for the support,
>>> else some unused code can be removed.
>>>
>>> Gerd
>

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

Re: type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

popej
Hi Carlos,

so you expect, that following "through_route", shouldn't generate
navigation message? This is a bit different, then I assumed. My first
idea was to make as many messages as possible, when crossroad include
any "through_route".

For Y shaped crossroads, we can simulate angle 180 for "through_route"
and 90 for second one. I think result would depend on roads types and on
whether roads have names.

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

Re: type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

Carlos Dávila-2
El 11/01/17 a las 20:36, Andrzej Popowski escribió:

> Hi Carlos,
>
> so you expect, that following "through_route", shouldn't generate
> navigation message? This is a bit different, then I assumed. My first
> idea was to make as many messages as possible, when crossroad include
> any "through_route".
>
> For Y shaped crossroads, we can simulate angle 180 for "through_route"
> and 90 for second one. I think result would depend on roads types and
> on whether roads have names.
>

Yes, that was the original purpose of through_route, if I recall correctly.


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

Re: type=through_route relations and mkgmap r3743

News-3
On 01/11/2017 09:01 PM, Carlos Dávila wrote:

> El 11/01/17 a las 20:36, Andrzej Popowski escribió:
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> so you expect, that following "through_route", shouldn't generate
>> navigation message? This is a bit different, then I assumed. My first
>> idea was to make as many messages as possible, when crossroad include
>> any "through_route".
>>
>> For Y shaped crossroads, we can simulate angle 180 for "through_route"
>> and 90 for second one. I think result would depend on roads types and
>> on whether roads have names.
>>
>
> Yes, that was the original purpose of through_route, if I recall correctly.
>
>

Yes - That was also my understanding of what should happen

Thanks

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