Hi, I'm testing mkgmap routing with a map made with r973. The progress made in the last few weeks is impressive, thanks! Most motorway exits and crossings give correct turn instructions on my eTrex Legend. This one here is an exception: http://data.giub.uni-bonn.de/openrouteservice/index.php?start=11.0232729,49.... The purple route line goes all the way through the motorway junction correctly, but there is not a single turn instruction. Any ideas?
Ralf Kleineisel wrote:
Hi,
I'm testing mkgmap routing with a map made with r973. The progress made in the last few weeks is impressive, thanks!
Most motorway exits and crossings give correct turn instructions on my eTrex Legend. This one here is an exception:
http://data.giub.uni-bonn.de/openrouteservice/index.php?start=11.0232729,49....
Sorry, the correct link is: http://data.giub.uni-bonn.de/openrouteservice/index.php?start=11.0232729,49....
The purple route line goes all the way through the motorway junction correctly, but there is not a single turn instruction.
Any ideas? _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Ralf Kleineisel <ralf@kleineisel.de> wrote:
Most motorway exits and crossings give correct turn instructions on my eTrex Legend. This one here is an exception: [...] The purple route line goes all the way through the motorway junction correctly, but there is not a single turn instruction.
I have found I get more precise routing directions with the following changes in my lines style file: highway=motorway_link {add bicycle = no; add foot = no } [0x09 road_class=4 road_speed=3 resolution 17 highway=trunk_link {add bicycle = no; add foot = no } [0x08 road_class=3 road_speed=3 resolution 18] highway=primary_link [0x08 road_class=3 road_speed=3 resolution 19] 0x09 and 0x08 are types for ramps. I believe this was discusse earlier in this list. I did not test your route in my eTrex, but I tried it in Mapsource. The route, which usually corresponds closely with the directions on my eTrex, looks like this: 1. A3 2. Get on A 3 and drive southeast 3. Exit right onto ramp onto B 4 4. Keep left onto B 4 ramp 5. Keep right onto B 4 ramp 6. ÄussereNürnberg 1.8 km Perhaps you could try it with the above changes in your styles? Hope this helps.
Clinton Gladstone wrote:
0x09 and 0x08 are types for ramps. I believe this was discusse earlier in this list.
Do the Garmin line types influence the display only or the routing as well? I had thought that for routing there is the "road_class". Right now I am using: highway=motorway {add oneway=yes ; add bicycle=no; add foot=no} [0x01 road_class=4 road_speed=6 level 6] highway=motorway_link {add oneway=yes; add bicycle=no; add foot=no} [0x01 road_class=4 road_speed=3 level 4] highway=primary [0x02 road_class=3 road_speed=4 level 5] highway=primary_link [0x02 road_class=3 road_speed=3 level 4] together with a selfmade TYP file. Other motorway exits like this one: http://data.giub.uni-bonn.de/openrouteservice/index.php?start=10.7965619,49.... work fine. Here I get the first turn instruction about 1.5 km before the exit, then a "Keep right" and on the ramp a "Right on St 2763". Perfect. The OSM tags look the same to me.
Perhaps you could try it with the above changes in your styles?
I will try that. The problem is that I want more different line styles for tracks and paths in my hiking map so I used some of the road types for that.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Ralf Kleineisel <ralf@kleineisel.de> wrote:
Clinton Gladstone wrote:
0x09 and 0x08 are types for ramps. I believe this was discusse earlier in this list.
Do the Garmin line types influence the display only or the routing as well? I had thought that for routing there is the "road_class".
As far as I know (and I don't know much about the Garmin routing algorithm), class and speed are indeed the main determiners for the path chosen. The types (0x09 and 0x08) do carry semantic meaning, and therefore influence display as well as the description of the route. I have noted the following: - Before I changed the *_link rules to 0x09 and 0x08, my device did not give as precise a description of the exit. The exits were not described as "ramps" in the description. - Also, from my observations, having two tags assigned to the same Garmin code, but with different resolutions does not seem to work. In your example, you have [0x01 ... level 6] and [0x01 ... level 4] assigned to motorway and motorway_link respectively. If my observations are correct, motorway and motorway_link will always be displayed at the same level (either both 6 or 4 but not one or the other). You can test this. - I also suspect that the above may influence routing. This is much harder to test, but I believe I noticed something similar: when I changed primary to 0x03 from 0x02 (0x02 was also assigned to trunk), it seemed that the routing changed to favour trunk over primary. I have only anecdotal evidence for this. I imagine in your case that having 0x01 assigned to both motorways and _links will make almost no difference to the routing: the links are almost always so short as to be negligible. You may get better route and turn descriptions though, as your device may recognize that you are to enter a different road section, as opposed to remaining on the same (0x01) road. It would be interesting to hear your results. Hope this helps.
Clinton Gladstone wrote:
- Before I changed the *_link rules to 0x09 and 0x08, my device did not give as precise a description of the exit. The exits were not described as "ramps" in the description.
I can affirm the above statement. Routing instructions in the complicated motorway/trunk junction are much better with 0x09 and 0x08 for links. So far the codes with special meaning for routing I am aware of are 0x0c (roundabout), 0x08 (trunk_link) and 0x09 (motorway_link).
Hi, On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Ralf Kleineisel <ralf@kleineisel.de> wrote:
Clinton Gladstone wrote:
- Before I changed the *_link rules to 0x09 and 0x08, my device did not give as precise a description of the exit. The exits were not described as "ramps" in the description.
I can affirm the above statement. Routing instructions in the complicated motorway/trunk junction are much better with 0x09 and 0x08 for links.
So far the codes with special meaning for routing I am aware of are 0x0c (roundabout), 0x08 (trunk_link) and 0x09 (motorway_link).
Thanks for working this out guys! I've attached a patch to fix this in the default style. It would be nice to get this committed so that everyone can get this fix by default. Cheers, Ben Index: /home/ben/workspace/mkgmap2/resources/styles/default/lines =================================================================== --- /home/ben/workspace/mkgmap2/resources/styles/default/lines (revision 974) +++ /home/ben/workspace/mkgmap2/resources/styles/default/lines (working copy) @@ -23,10 +23,10 @@ highway=footway {add access = no; add foot = yes} [0x16 road_class=0 road_speed=0 resolution 23] highway=minor [0x06 road_class=1 road_speed=2 resolution 21] highway=motorway {add oneway = yes; add bicycle = no; add foot = no } [0x01 road_class=4 road_speed=6 resolution 12] -highway=motorway_link {add oneway = yes; add bicycle = no; add foot = no } [0x01 road_class=4 road_speed=3 resolution 16] +highway=motorway_link {add oneway = yes; add bicycle = no; add foot = no } [0x09 road_class=4 road_speed=3 resolution 16] highway=pedestrian & area!=yes [0x06 road_class=0 road_speed=0 resolution 22] highway=primary [0x02 road_class=3 road_speed=4 resolution 19] -highway=primary_link [0x03 road_class=3 road_speed=3 resolution 19] +highway=primary_link [0x08 road_class=3 road_speed=3 resolution 19] highway=residential | highway=living_street [0x06 road_class=0 road_speed=2 resolution 21] highway=secondary [0x04 road_class=2 road_speed=3 resolution 20] highway=path {add access = no; add bicycle = yes; add foot = yes} [0x16 road_class=0 road_speed=0 resolution 20] @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ highway=tertiary [0x05 road_class=1 road_speed=3 resolution 20] highway=track [0x0a road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 21] highway=trunk [0x02 road_class=3 road_speed=5 resolution 16] -highway=trunk_link [0x02 road_class=3 road_speed=3 resolution 16] +highway=trunk_link [0x08 road_class=3 road_speed=3 resolution 16] highway=unclassified [0x06 road_class=1 road_speed=2 resolution 21] highway=unsurfaced [0x0a road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 21]
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Ben Konrath <ben@bagu.org> wrote:
Thanks for working this out guys! I've attached a patch to fix this in the default style. It would be nice to get this committed so that everyone can get this fix by default.
By the way, I think there is still a potential problem in the default style for primary and trunk: both are defined as 0x02. highway=primary [0x02 road_class=3 road_speed=4 resolution 19] highway=trunk [0x02 road_class=3 road_speed=5 resolution 16] Should primary not be 0x03? I changed this in my style file, and it, as I noted above, seemed to have an effect on routing. It most certainly had an effect on display, as previously both primary and trunk were displayed with resolution 16. What do you think?
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Clinton Gladstone <clinton.gladstone@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Ben Konrath <ben@bagu.org> wrote:
Thanks for working this out guys! I've attached a patch to fix this in the default style. It would be nice to get this committed so that everyone can get this fix by default.
By the way, I think there is still a potential problem in the default style for primary and trunk: both are defined as 0x02.
highway=primary [0x02 road_class=3 road_speed=4 resolution 19] highway=trunk [0x02 road_class=3 road_speed=5 resolution 16]
Should primary not be 0x03?
I changed this in my style file, and it, as I noted above, seemed to have an effect on routing. It most certainly had an effect on display, as previously both primary and trunk were displayed with resolution 16.
What do you think?
I don't use my GPS for routing enough to comment. That said, I've changed my configs to reflect what you have. It would be nice to get this committed for everyone. Cheers, Ben
participants (3)
-
Ben Konrath -
Clinton Gladstone -
Ralf Kleineisel