routing errors on temporarily closed roads
Hi, In the default styles, mkgmap has some routing problems with roads that are temporarily closed with the tag "access=no" For instance, this problem can occur on cycleways which are closed to all traffic (bicycles as well) because of road reconstructions. In the default style the handling is highway=cycleway {add access = no; add bicycle = yes; add foot = yes} [0x16 road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 23] If someone is adding the tag access=no on osm to mark this way temporarily closed, mkgmap ignores this rule because it gives all cycleways by default a tag bicycle=yes (which allows bicycle routing on this street, even access=no). Maybe its better to check first if there is already a tag access=no, and if so, set bicycle=no? Something like this? highway=cycleway & access!=no {add access = no; add bicycle = yes; add foot = yes} [0x16 road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 23]
PS I forgot to give an example to test the routing: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7432950
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:16:23AM +0200, Minko wrote:
Something like this?
highway=cycleway & access!=no {add access = no; add bicycle = yes; add foot = yes} [0x16 road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 23]
I believe you would need something like this, so that you get to see the temporarily closed ways on the map: highway=cycleway & (access!=no | access!=*) {add access = no; add bicycle = yes; add foot = yes} highway=cycleway & access=no [0x16 road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 23] Can you please test this? If it is OK, I am happy to commit it. It also occurs to me that highway=cycleway or highway=path&bicycle=designated implies foot=yes in the default style. That seems wrong to me; walking should be prohibited on cycleways unless explicitly allowed (e.g., foot=designated or foot=yes in the map data). Marko
2010/7/20 Marko Mäkelä <marko.makela@iki.fi>:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:16:23AM +0200, Minko wrote:
Something like this?
highway=cycleway & access!=no {add access = no; add bicycle = yes; add foot = yes} [0x16 road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 23]
I believe you would need something like this, so that you get to see the temporarily closed ways on the map:
highway=cycleway & (access!=no | access!=*) {add access = no; add bicycle = yes; add foot = yes} highway=cycleway & access=no [0x16 road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 23]
Can you please test this? If it is OK, I am happy to commit it.
It also occurs to me that highway=cycleway or highway=path&bicycle=designated implies foot=yes in the default style. That seems wrong to me; walking should be prohibited on cycleways unless explicitly allowed (e.g., foot=designated or foot=yes in the map data).
I have this at the top of my style since a few days: #general access: highway=* & access=( no | private ) {add foot=no; add bicycle=no; add horse=no; add motorcar=no } #designated and official treatment: #allow main users to prevent designated & official blocking them highway=footway { add foot=yes } highway=cycleway { add bicycle=yes } highway=bridleway { add horse=yes } #set permissions of official & designated: highway=* & foot=( designated | official ) {set foot=yes; add bicycle=no; add horse=no } highway=* & bicycle=( designated | official ) {set bicycle=yes; add foot=no; add horse=no } highway=* & horse=( designated | official ) {set horse=yes; add foot=no; add bicycle=no } This way, designated & official seem to work correctly and general access restrictions are also considered. -Martin
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 02:26:12PM +0200, Martin Simon wrote:
I have this at the top of my style since a few days:
#general access: highway=* & access=( no | private ) {add foot=no; add bicycle=no; add horse=no; add motorcar=no }
#designated and official treatment:
#allow main users to prevent designated & official blocking them highway=footway { add foot=yes } highway=cycleway { add bicycle=yes } highway=bridleway { add horse=yes }
#set permissions of official & designated: highway=* & foot=( designated | official ) {set foot=yes; add bicycle=no; add horse=no } highway=* & bicycle=( designated | official ) {set bicycle=yes; add foot=no; add horse=no } highway=* & horse=( designated | official ) {set horse=yes; add foot=no; add bicycle=no }
This way, designated & official seem to work correctly and general access restrictions are also considered.
Thank you, this looks reasonable. I have to think about the case highway=cycleway. If we continue to add foot=yes there, then we are essentially sweeping bugs in the map data under the carpet. If we don't, then we could break pedestrian routing in some areas (and users would hopefully end up fixing the map data). Marko
Am 20.07.2010 13:15, schrieb Marko Mäkelä:
It also occurs to me that highway=cycleway or highway=path&bicycle=designated implies foot=yes in the default style. That seems wrong to me;
Even if this is "wrong" in terms of Wiki, the foot=yes is often forgotten by mappers, so I think it's not a good idea to imply foot=no for cycleways. Chris
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 02:34:20PM +0200, Chris66 wrote:
Am 20.07.2010 13:15, schrieb Marko Mäkelä:
It also occurs to me that highway=cycleway or highway=path&bicycle=designated implies foot=yes in the default style. That seems wrong to me;
Even if this is "wrong" in terms of Wiki, the foot=yes is often forgotten by mappers, so I think it's not a good idea to imply foot=no for cycleways.
You're right, it might not be a good idea to imply foot=no for highway=cycleway. Many mappers seem to be ignorant of the access tags, as well as surface=*, lit=yes/no, segregated=yes/no. In countries like NL or DE where there are regions with a well built "bicycle motorway" network, the highway=cycleway could really mean foot=no (and there would be a foot path nearby), but in other places, it usually implies foot=designated. It could be least ambiguous to abandon the highway=cycleway tagging altogether and use highway=path instead. JOSM seems to promote this, by rendering highway=path, foot=designated, bicycle=designated as green-magenta lines. BTW, it can be an eye-opening experience to visit places where bicycling or walking is not that common. For example in Tallinn, the capital of Estonia (a flat country comparable to Denmark), there are few cycleways and you cannot expect to find a pedestrian crossing in every street corner. But as soon as you get out of the city, you don't really need cycleways: there is not too much traffic, and the motorists pass bicycles with a great distance. Marko
Marko Mäkelä wrote:
It could be least ambiguous to abandon the highway=cycleway tagging altogether and use highway=path instead. JOSM seems to promote this, by rendering highway=path, foot=designated, bicycle=designated as green-magenta lines.
Changing the road type would not help with the access tagging problem. You would still wonder if it is generally allowed or not. (Local regulations might differ on this) Using path-tag for cycleways would loose some information about the road type. I think most real paths (where you can cycle) are much different from real cycleways. I'd assume most paths to be narrow and probably surface=earth. I'd not assume that for a cycleway. One solution is to add (missing) restrictions before you add any allowing tags: # fill missing tags highway=* & access=no { add motorcar=no; add bicycle=no; add foot=no } # add whatever you want to assume highway=cycway { add bicycle=yes } -- Harri
2010/7/22 Harri Suomalainen <harri.suomalainen@iki.fi>:
Changing the road type would not help with the access tagging problem. You would still wonder if it is generally allowed or not. (Local regulations might differ on this)
highway=path has no implied restrictions for means of transport that are not motor vehicles. It is expected to be tagged seperately if such restrictions are present.
Using path-tag for cycleways would loose some information about the road type. I think most real paths (where you can cycle) are much different from real cycleways. I'd assume most paths to be narrow and probably surface=earth. I'd not assume that for a cycleway.
No, highway=path doesn't mean "narrow foot path in the woods, orcs lurking behind the trees", it can be any minor way (think "smaller than track") and can have any surface. The whole point is to have a way-type without much implications that can represent "footway/cycleway/bridleway" and any other way types with and without designation for one or more modes of transport, using the *=designated or *=official tags. -Martin
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 07:44:19AM +0200, Martin Simon wrote:
Using path-tag for cycleways would loose some information about the road type. I think most real paths (where you can cycle) are much different from real cycleways. I'd assume most paths to be narrow and probably surface=earth. I'd not assume that for a cycleway.
No, highway=path doesn't mean "narrow foot path in the woods, orcs lurking behind the trees", it can be any minor way (think "smaller than track") and can have any surface. The whole point is to have a way-type without much implications that can represent "footway/cycleway/bridleway" and any other way types with and without designation for one or more modes of transport, using the *=designated or *=official tags.
Right, I hope that we can deprecate highway=cycleway and use highway=path with the (varying) implicit assumptions spelled out: lit=yes/no, segregated=yes/no, bicycle=yes/no/designated/official, foot=yes/no/designated/official, surface=paved/unpaved/.... Then rendering, translation or routing tools will not need to make any educated guesses. If you think that highway=path is misleading for a cycleway, then think about highway=steps. Stairs are quite different from highways. :-) Marko
participants (5)
-
Chris66 -
Harri Suomalainen -
Marko Mäkelä -
Martin Simon -
Minko