[PATCH v3] - beware of the bollards!
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0d78f/0d78f38077a2f8d435eb75b37ffab5d5fb801683" alt=""
v3 now adds extra points either side of the POI to reduce length of way that has restricted access. Currently points are 25m away from the POI. It would be nice if they were really close (like 5m) but if you try that, the map looks crap due to the limited coordinate resolution. So, 25m is a compromise between visual appearance and minimising the extent of the restricted zone. ------------ v2 - quick update based on instantaneous feedback from ML! Now works for any POI that sets "access=no" (could use the more general test of any of the access tags being set but let's see how this works for now). Default access rights now set in style file. Any suggestions for a better code for cycle_barrier? ------------ Fed up of being routed in your car down city streets only to find the way is blocked by a bollard? Well, if so, this is the patch for you. If a way has a bollard on a point, the segments of the way that connect to the bollard have access restrictions placed on them. By default, a bollard implies: access=no, foot=yes, bicycle=yes. Testing using mapsource shows that it generally works as expected although if the destination cannot be reached by any other route, it routes straight through the bollard rather than failing! If the destination can be reached by some other route, even if the route is really long, it will avoid the bollard. I have chosen Garmin code 0x660f (pillar) for the bollard. On my etrex it appears as a small dot in the way. As usual, all feedback is welcome. Cheers, Mark
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7c771/7c771fc91d38d962fc3ff292598f967d737e1844" alt=""
Hi, On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:03:41PM +0100, Mark Burton wrote: [...]
diff --git a/resources/styles/default/points b/resources/styles/default/points index 1c3ae8f..a97fc13 100644 --- a/resources/styles/default/points +++ b/resources/styles/default/points @@ -166,3 +166,7 @@ tourism=theme_park [0x2c01 resolution 20] tourism=viewpoint [0x2c04 resolution 20] tourism=wine_cellar [0x2c0a resolution 20] tourism=zoo [0x2c07 resolution 20] + +barrier=bollard {add access = no; add bicycle = yes; add foot = yes} [0x660f resolution 20] +barrier=cycle_barier {add access = no; add bicycle = yes; add foot = yes} [0x660f resolution 20] + [...]
Haven't looked to closely at the rest... At least commit that part, it doesn't hurt anything, I'd say. Elrond
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8bf2e/8bf2e006b0baa1a8a43f53caf673657ab62647e8" alt=""
Mark Burton wrote:
v3
now adds extra points either side of the POI to reduce length of way that has restricted access. Currently points are 25m away from the POI. It would be nice if they were really close (like 5m) but if you try that, the map looks crap due to the limited coordinate resolution. So, 25m is a compromise between visual appearance and minimising the extent of the restricted zone.
------------
As a map user and data contributor I get frustrated by the lack of resolution. I'm not sure exactly where in the map rendering process the detail being discussed here lies, but it would be my preference to resolve nodes down to 1m. There are plenty of instances where complex junctions have many roads, footpaths, gates, bollards, cattle grids and stiles all within a 10m radius, on both sides of a country road, expanding the resolution to 25m would make a mess of carefully plotted features and make it even more difficult to render at the highest zoom. If the rendering produces a cluttered map, then that's a rendering issue, but for routing, complex junctions need fine resolution. WessexMario
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0d78f/0d78f38077a2f8d435eb75b37ffab5d5fb801683" alt=""
Hi WessexMario,
As a map user and data contributor I get frustrated by the lack of resolution. I'm not sure exactly where in the map rendering process the detail being discussed here lies, but it would be my preference to resolve nodes down to 1m. There are plenty of instances where complex junctions have many roads, footpaths, gates, bollards, cattle grids and stiles all within a 10m radius, on both sides of a country road, expanding the resolution to 25m would make a mess of carefully plotted features and make it even more difficult to render at the highest zoom. If the rendering produces a cluttered map, then that's a rendering issue, but for routing, complex junctions need fine resolution.
Yeah, but look at the figures. The Garmin coordinates are 24 bits so the angular resolution is 360/2^24 - using a circumference of 40,075Km, that yields a resolution of 2.388m. Cheers, Mark
participants (3)
-
Elrond
-
Mark Burton
-
WessexMario