Hi all, the lines file in the default style contains this rule: # Mop up any unrecognised highway types highway=* & highway!=proposed & area!=yes [0x07 road_class=0 road_speed=0 resolution 23] I've changed it to highway=* & highway!=proposed & area!=yes { echotags "mop up" } [0x07 road_class=0 road_speed=0 resolution 23] to see what it does and it "mops up" all kings of problem cases, e.g. mapping errors like highway=turning_circle or removed highways with the highway=razed I think the default style should not add these ways as routable, if at all. It also catches many highway=platform and highway=rest_area Most of these ways are areas, but don't have the area=yes tag. I am not sure why the "mop up" rule would ignore them when the area=yes tag exists. Gerd
Hi Gerd,
Most of these ways are areas, but don't have the area=yes tag. I am not sure why the "mop up" rule would ignore them when the area=yes tag exists.
I'm not sure if I understand your problem, so following are my observations only. Area described as a highway could be a multipolygon, without are=yes tag. Myltipolygon is area by default. I add following line to my style: highway=* & mkgmap:mp_created=true { add area=yes; } Highway area drown as a line clutters map and IMHO should be avoided. Usually there exist corresponding highway line too. -- Best regards, Andrzej
Hi Andrzej, I think 1st I wanted to point out that the "mop up" rule should be removed, it is likely to produce wrong routing. I found it because in my area a motorway replaced a primary road and that primary road is now mapped with highway=razed, e.g. here http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/366288074 It also mops up all kinds of typos and undocumented tagging, e.g. highway=traffic_island. Regarding area=yes: I understand that we don't want to add those highways to NOD, at least not until mkgmap is able to calculate direkt ways through an area. On the other hand, the rule railway=platform [0x16 road_class=0 road_speed=0 resolution 23] is likely to do that. I guess it is okay here because we make sure that railway=platform is pedestrian only? Gerd
Most of these ways are areas, but don't have the area=yes tag. I am not sure why the "mop up" rule would ignore them when the area=yes tag exists.
I'm not sure if I understand your problem, so following are my observations only.
Area described as a highway could be a multipolygon, without are=yes tag. Myltipolygon is area by default. I add following line to my style: highway=* & mkgmap:mp_created=true { add area=yes; }
Highway area drown as a line clutters map and IMHO should be avoided. Usually there exist corresponding highway line too.
Hi Gerd,
I think 1st I wanted to point out that the "mop up" rule should be removed, it is likely to produce wrong routing.
I doubt it could make a really bad routing, it is nearly the lowest category of road anyway. As a result IMHO it goes to personal preferences, whether to use it. Do not remove it - if you don't like it, then leave it as comment. There are more similar problems in default style. For example, should we create a point for a "place=", which has no name? Maybe simple to use something like {echotags "FIXME"} to give warnings, whenever we are not sure of a proper solution? This will delegate problem to an actual user. -- Best regards, Andrzej
Hi Andrzej, okay, I've left the "mop up" rule. In some cases it will catch "wrong" tagging of "correct" roads, e.g. when a way has the highway=crossing tag instead of something like highway=footway;footway=crossing Gerd
To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk From: popej@poczta.onet.pl Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:07:14 +0200 Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] highway=razed
Hi Gerd,
I think 1st I wanted to point out that the "mop up" rule should be removed, it is likely to produce wrong routing.
I doubt it could make a really bad routing, it is nearly the lowest category of road anyway. As a result IMHO it goes to personal preferences, whether to use it. Do not remove it - if you don't like it, then leave it as comment.
There are more similar problems in default style. For example, should we create a point for a "place=", which has no name?
Maybe simple to use something like {echotags "FIXME"} to give warnings, whenever we are not sure of a proper solution? This will delegate problem to an actual user.
-- Best regards, Andrzej _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Hi all, I've changed my mind regarding the mop up rule. During the last days I've done a lot of cleanup work in OSM to reduce the number of special cases, but I still see various different tags highway=* which express some kind of planning state or a variant of disused,dismantled,abandonded. Esp. the tags which express a planned (or not yet planned) status are problematic, they may be non-existent bridges or tunnels. I still try to build up my mind regarding the tags which express some kind of life cycle, there is obviously a need for a new tag and a clear wiki... Gerd GerdP wrote
Hi Andrzej,
okay, I've left the "mop up" rule. In some cases it will catch "wrong" tagging of "correct" roads, e.g. when a way has the highway=crossing tag instead of something like highway=footway;footway=crossing
Gerd
To:
mkgmap-dev@.org
From:
popej@.onet
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:07:14 +0200 Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] highway=razed
Hi Gerd,
I think 1st I wanted to point out that the "mop up" rule should be removed, it is likely to produce wrong routing.
I doubt it could make a really bad routing, it is nearly the lowest category of road anyway. As a result IMHO it goes to personal preferences, whether to use it. Do not remove it - if you don't like it, then leave it as comment.
There are more similar problems in default style. For example, should we create a point for a "place=", which has no name?
Maybe simple to use something like {echotags "FIXME"} to give warnings, whenever we are not sure of a proper solution? This will delegate problem to an actual user.
-- Best regards, Andrzej _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@.org
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@.org
-- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/highway-razed-tp5854935p5857419.html Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:03:52AM -0700, GerdP wrote:
Esp. the tags which express a planned (or not yet planned) status are problematic, they may be non-existent bridges or tunnels.
Speaking of tunnels, would it be technically possible to hide tunnels from the map view, while keeping them in the routing graph? This could be useful in urban areas. A few years ago, I added rules to hide unrouteable tunnels, such as highway=service,access=private, or railway tunnels (subways). A separate discussion is whether it is practically feasible to hide such tunnels from the map display in the default style. In my opinion, it would be. As long as the tunnel exists in the routing graph, it can be used for routing (typically, for cars only). Pedestrians and bicyclists or anyone who is at the street level would not be confused by seeing the map cluttered with the "bogus" road. Best regards, Marko
Hi Marko, I don't know any way to hide an object in the map without a typ file, besides that I would not want to hide it completely. Gerd ________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Marko Mäkelä <marko.makela@iki.fi> Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2015 09:47 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: [mkgmap-dev] Hiding long tunnels from map view while keeping them routable On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:03:52AM -0700, GerdP wrote:
Esp. the tags which express a planned (or not yet planned) status are problematic, they may be non-existent bridges or tunnels.
Speaking of tunnels, would it be technically possible to hide tunnels from the map view, while keeping them in the routing graph? This could be useful in urban areas. A few years ago, I added rules to hide unrouteable tunnels, such as highway=service,access=private, or railway tunnels (subways). A separate discussion is whether it is practically feasible to hide such tunnels from the map display in the default style. In my opinion, it would be. As long as the tunnel exists in the routing graph, it can be used for routing (typically, for cars only). Pedestrians and bicyclists or anyone who is at the street level would not be confused by seeing the map cluttered with the "bogus" road. Best regards, Marko _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
participants (5)
-
Andrzej Popowski -
Gerd Petermann -
Gerd Petermann
-
GerdP
-
Marko Mäkelä