[PATCH v2] heed the through_route relation when adjusting turn headings
v2 - no longer requires the node to have role "junction" This patch also includes two other changes to the heading adjustment code: When matching arcs, as a last resort, match road class and speed. If at a node, an outgoing arc cannot be matched to an incoming arc by possiblySameRoad(), try to find a single outgoing arc that has the same road class and speed as the incoming arc and use that. and: When adjusting turn headings apply all relevant adjustments. Previously, if a heading needed adjusting because the delta from the outgoing arc was too small, it did not then consider whether the delta from the incoming arc was too small also. Now, it considers both cases and adjusts the heading as appropriate. So please test even if you are not adding any through_route relations and if you see any notable changes (good or bad) please say. -------------------- This new relation (type through_route) specifies which 2 ways are the "through route" at a junction. The relation requires 2 ways (no role required) and a node with role = junction. It should only be used at those junctions where the through route cannot be reliably inferred from the ways' names and/or refs. Here's an example from my local town: | 1 | / | / |/ A | | | | B /| / | / | 2 | The vertical road is the "through route", i.e. you can drive from one end to the other without crossing any white lines. But, from point 1 to point 2 is a B road so ways 1-A, A-B, and B-2 all have some ref, say, B1234. Without the through_route relation, mkgmap assumes (erroneously) that the through route is 1-2 because all of the ways in that route have the ref B1234. By adding 2 through_route relations (one at A and the other at B), mkgmap is informed of the real through route and will take that into account when adjusting the turn headings. The end result is that the quality of the routing directions is improved (we hope). In this example, we need to have 2 relations because the B road joins/leaves the through route at two places. So if you know of any junctions that would benefit from this relation, please add it to the map data and try this patch to see if it improves the routing instructions. Mark
Worked for me earlier today on a TOTSO that was previously missed. Cheers Paul On 06/02/10 18:43, Mark Burton wrote:
v2 - no longer requires the node to have role "junction"
This patch also includes two other changes to the heading adjustment code:
When matching arcs, as a last resort, match road class and speed.
If at a node, an outgoing arc cannot be matched to an incoming arc by possiblySameRoad(), try to find a single outgoing arc that has the same road class and speed as the incoming arc and use that.
and:
When adjusting turn headings apply all relevant adjustments.
Previously, if a heading needed adjusting because the delta from the outgoing arc was too small, it did not then consider whether the delta from the incoming arc was too small also. Now, it considers both cases and adjusts the heading as appropriate.
So please test even if you are not adding any through_route relations and if you see any notable changes (good or bad) please say.
--------------------
This new relation (type through_route) specifies which 2 ways are the "through route" at a junction. The relation requires 2 ways (no role required) and a node with role = junction. It should only be used at those junctions where the through route cannot be reliably inferred from the ways' names and/or refs.
Here's an example from my local town:
| 1 | / | / |/ A | | | | B /| / | / | 2 |
The vertical road is the "through route", i.e. you can drive from one end to the other without crossing any white lines. But, from point 1 to point 2 is a B road so ways 1-A, A-B, and B-2 all have some ref, say, B1234.
Without the through_route relation, mkgmap assumes (erroneously) that the through route is 1-2 because all of the ways in that route have the ref B1234.
By adding 2 through_route relations (one at A and the other at B), mkgmap is informed of the real through route and will take that into account when adjusting the turn headings. The end result is that the quality of the routing directions is improved (we hope).
In this example, we need to have 2 relations because the B road joins/leaves the through route at two places.
So if you know of any junctions that would benefit from this relation, please add it to the map data and try this patch to see if it improves the routing instructions.
Mark
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Paul escribió:
Worked for me earlier today on a TOTSO that was previously missed.
Tested with just one through_route relation, and also worked for me.
Cheers
Paul
On 06/02/10 18:43, Mark Burton wrote:
v2 - no longer requires the node to have role "junction"
This patch also includes two other changes to the heading adjustment code:
When matching arcs, as a last resort, match road class and speed.
If at a node, an outgoing arc cannot be matched to an incoming arc by possiblySameRoad(), try to find a single outgoing arc that has the same road class and speed as the incoming arc and use that.
and:
When adjusting turn headings apply all relevant adjustments.
Previously, if a heading needed adjusting because the delta from the outgoing arc was too small, it did not then consider whether the delta from the incoming arc was too small also. Now, it considers both cases and adjusts the heading as appropriate.
So please test even if you are not adding any through_route relations and if you see any notable changes (good or bad) please say.
--------------------
This new relation (type through_route) specifies which 2 ways are the "through route" at a junction. The relation requires 2 ways (no role required) and a node with role = junction. It should only be used at those junctions where the through route cannot be reliably inferred from the ways' names and/or refs.
Here's an example from my local town:
| 1 | / | / |/ A | | | | B /| / | / | 2 |
The vertical road is the "through route", i.e. you can drive from one end to the other without crossing any white lines. But, from point 1 to point 2 is a B road so ways 1-A, A-B, and B-2 all have some ref, say, B1234.
Without the through_route relation, mkgmap assumes (erroneously) that the through route is 1-2 because all of the ways in that route have the ref B1234.
By adding 2 through_route relations (one at A and the other at B), mkgmap is informed of the real through route and will take that into account when adjusting the turn headings. The end result is that the quality of the routing directions is improved (we hope).
In this example, we need to have 2 relations because the B road joins/leaves the through route at two places.
So if you know of any junctions that would benefit from this relation, please add it to the map data and try this patch to see if it improves the routing instructions.
Mark
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
-- Por favor, no me envíe documentos con extensiones .doc, .docx, .xls, .xlsx, .ppt, .pptx, .mdb, mdbx Instale OpenOffice desde http://es.openoffice.org/programa/index.html OpenOffice es libre: se puede copiar, modificar y redistribuir libremente. Gratis y totalmente legal. OpenOffice funciona mejor que otros paquetes de oficina. OpenOffice está en continuo desarrollo y no tendrá que pagar por las nuevas versiones.
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Mark Burton <markb@ordern.com> wrote:
This new relation (type through_route) specifies which 2 ways are the "through route" at a junction.
I have been testing this patch too, and have so far not found any problems. Is "through route" documented in the OSM Wiki? I was unable to find any information on this. Cheers.
Hi Clinton,
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Mark Burton <markb@ordern.com> wrote:
This new relation (type through_route) specifies which 2 ways are the "through route" at a junction.
I have been testing this patch too, and have so far not found any problems.
Is "through route" documented in the OSM Wiki? I was unable to find any information on this.
Not yet, but it should be. I was rather hoping that some kind person would add a page to the Wiki describing it. Cheers, Mark
On Feb 12, 2010, at 12:46, Mark Burton wrote:
Is "through route" documented in the OSM Wiki? I was unable to find any information on this.
Not yet, but it should be. I was rather hoping that some kind person would add a page to the Wiki describing it.
So about adding this to the Wiki: is there any other information about the through_route relation type, except what has appeared in this mailing list? Is the node with role "junction" now obsolete, or simply optional? Cheers.
Hi Clinton,
On Feb 12, 2010, at 12:46, Mark Burton wrote:
Is "through route" documented in the OSM Wiki? I was unable to find any information on this.
Not yet, but it should be. I was rather hoping that some kind person would add a page to the Wiki describing it.
So about adding this to the Wiki: is there any other information about the through_route relation type, except what has appeared in this mailing list?
No, I discussed it with a few people on the OSM IRC channel but other than that, I believe our mailing list knows as much about it as anyone.
Is the node with role "junction" now obsolete, or simply optional?
The node is required but it doesn't have to have a role. The requirements are that the relation has two members that are ways that meet at the specified node. None of them need to have roles. It was originally suggested that the node had role "junction" but I don't see why that is required. Cheers, Mark
participants (4)
-
Carlos Dávila -
Clinton Gladstone -
Mark Burton -
Paul