change handling of railway=abandoned
Hi all, the default style has this rule: # following really should be removed, but see: http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2016q3/025104.html railway=abandoned [0x0a road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 22] I agree with Ticker that it is not a good idea to make such a way routable. I would accept this when it has also a tag like bicycle=yes. I found a few ways like this, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/122268824 (I wonder why nobody added a highway tag since 2011) BUT we should not assume access=yes for a railway=abandoned. So, what about this: railway=abandoned {add access=no} [0x0a road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 22] Gerd
Hi I have this in my style: railway=abandoned & highway!=* & ((bicycle=* & bicycle!=no & bicycle!=proposed) | (foot=* & foot!=no & foot!=proposed)) {set highway=path} highway=path might be converted by later rules to bridleway, footway or cycleway Ticker On Sat, 2020-01-18 at 18:51 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi all,
the default style has this rule: # following really should be removed, but see: http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2016q3/025104.html railway=abandoned [0x0a road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 22]
I agree with Ticker that it is not a good idea to make such a way routable. I would accept this when it has also a tag like bicycle=yes. I found a few ways like this, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/122268824 (I wonder why nobody added a highway tag since 2011) BUT we should not assume access=yes for a railway=abandoned. So, what about this: railway=abandoned {add access=no} [0x0a road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 22]
Gerd _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Hi Gerd, "add access=no" is a very dangerous option. In my style, I added a rule for removing such ways completely. And it failed terribly - today, there may be public roads on previous railways. See also my post in the forum at https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=66451 Kind regards, Bernhard Am 18.01.2020 um 19:51 schrieb Gerd Petermann:
Hi all,
the default style has this rule: # following really should be removed, but see: http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2016q3/025104.html railway«andoned [0x0a road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 22]
I agree with Ticker that it is not a good idea to make such a way routable. I would accept this when it has also a tag like bicycle=s. I found a few ways like this, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/122268824 (I wonder why nobody added a highway tag since 2011) BUT we should not assume access=s for a railway«andoned. So, what about this: railway«andoned {add access=no} [0x0a road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 22]
Gerd
Hi Gerd, of course, {deletealltags} is a different action: it removes the way completely. "{add access=no}" just makes it unroutable, but leaves it visible on the map. Lte's take a look at the roads in my example (due to changes during the last couple of hours, be sure to look at last year's version): - the road to the south-west is a tertiary, without explicit access tags, and railway=razed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/326001702/history - the road north-east into Meinershagen is a residential, without explicit access tags, and railway=razed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/617284819/history - the road to the east is a primary, without explicit access tags, and railway=razed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/306731105/history True, there is another difference: railway=razed is not railway=abandoned. Can we be sure that all those tags used for indicating a former railway, like abandoned - dismantled - disused - razed etc., are always used correctly? I tried an overpass api search for railway=abandoned and highway=*, but could not find out how to do it correctly. If those roads had railway=abandoned instead, they would no more be routable with your rule. Or is there some catch? Let's look at some examples showing that railway=abandoned is not always used so strictly (or are milestones next to the way enough hints for the former presence of a railway?): - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121395347 has railway=abandoned, highway=path, with explicit access tags for foot and bicycle. I think the rule won't cause trouble here. - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/130369751 has railway=abandoned, path=cycleway, and an access tag for foot (but not for bicycle). I think the rule would then remove the access of bicycles to that cycleway. - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/101937226 has not yet been detected by the historic railway mappers, and lacks any railway tags. The rule won't do anything here ;-) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/561220394 has railway=abandoned, path=cycleway, and access tags for foot and bicycle. The rule won't cause trouble here. We should make sure that "access" won't be removed from highways with that rule. Kind regards, Bernhard Am 20.01.2020 um 19:49 schrieb Gerd Petermann:
Hi Bernhard,
well, {add access=no} is very different to action {deletealltags} My thinking is that a railway=abandoned without highway=* still might be used as a highway if a tag like foot=yes or bicycle=yes exists. Tickers idea should have more or less the same effect.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: Bernhard Hiller <bhil@gmx.de> Gesendet: Montag, 20. Januar 2020 19:41 An: Gerd Petermann Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] change handling of railway=abandoned
Hi Gerd, "add access=no" is a very dangerous option. In my style, I added a rule for removing such ways completely. And it failed terribly - today, there may be public roads on previous railways. See also my post in the forum at https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=66451 Kind regards, Bernhard
Am 18.01.2020 um 19:51 schrieb Gerd Petermann:
Hi all,
the default style has this rule: # following really should be removed, but see: http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2016q3/025104.html railway«andoned [0x0a road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 22]
I agree with Ticker that it is not a good idea to make such a way routable. I would accept this when it has also a tag like bicycle=s. I found a few ways like this, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/122268824 (I wonder why nobody added a highway tag since 2011) BUT we should not assume access=s for a railway«andoned. So, what about this: railway«andoned {add access=no} [0x0a road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 22]
Gerd
Hi Gerd rule should be OK with the addition clause of & highway!=*, but is there any reason not to have what I suggested. Ticker On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 11:36 +0100, Bernhard Hiller wrote:
Hi Gerd, of course, {deletealltags} is a different action: it removes the way completely. "{add access=no}" just makes it unroutable, but leaves it visible on the map.
Lte's take a look at the roads in my example (due to changes during the last couple of hours, be sure to look at last year's version): - the road to the south-west is a tertiary, without explicit access tags, and railway=razed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/326001702/history - the road north-east into Meinershagen is a residential, without explicit access tags, and railway=razed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/617284819/history - the road to the east is a primary, without explicit access tags, and railway=razed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/306731105/history
True, there is another difference: railway=razed is not railway=abandoned. Can we be sure that all those tags used for indicating a former railway, like abandoned - dismantled - disused - razed etc., are always used correctly? I tried an overpass api search for railway=abandoned and highway=*, but could not find out how to do it correctly.
If those roads had railway=abandoned instead, they would no more be routable with your rule. Or is there some catch?
Let's look at some examples showing that railway=abandoned is not always used so strictly (or are milestones next to the way enough hints for the former presence of a railway?): - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121395347 has railway=abandoned, highway=path, with explicit access tags for foot and bicycle. I think the rule won't cause trouble here.
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/130369751 has railway=abandoned, path=cycleway, and an access tag for foot (but not for bicycle). I think the rule would then remove the access of bicycles to that cycleway.
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/101937226 has not yet been detected by the historic railway mappers, and lacks any railway tags. The rule won't do anything here ;-)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/561220394 has railway=abandoned, path=cycleway, and access tags for foot and bicycle. The rule won't cause trouble here.
We should make sure that "access" won't be removed from highways with that rule.
Kind regards, Bernhard
Am 20.01.2020 um 19:49 schrieb Gerd Petermann:
Hi Bernhard,
well, {add access=no} is very different to action {deletealltags} My thinking is that a railway=abandoned without highway=* still might be used as a highway if a tag like foot=yes or bicycle=yes exists. Tickers idea should have more or less the same effect.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: Bernhard Hiller <bhil@gmx.de> Gesendet: Montag, 20. Januar 2020 19:41 An: Gerd Petermann Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] change handling of railway=abandoned
Hi Gerd, "add access=no" is a very dangerous option. In my style, I added a rule for removing such ways completely. And it failed terribly - today, there may be public roads on previous railways. See also my post in the forum at https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=66451 Kind regards, Bernhard
Am 18.01.2020 um 19:51 schrieb Gerd Petermann:
Hi all,
the default style has this rule: # following really should be removed, but see: http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2016q3/025104.html railway«andoned [0x0a road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 22]
I agree with Ticker that it is not a good idea to make such a way routable. I would accept this when it has also a tag like bicycle=s. I found a few ways like this, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/122268824 (I wonder why nobody added a highway tag since 2011) BUT we should not assume access=s for a railway«andoned. So, what about this: railway«andoned {add access=no} [0x0a road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 22]
Gerd
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Hi, @Bernhard: adding "access=no" doesn't make a way unroutable when the way has e.g. vehicle=yes or foot=yes. It just changes the default access which is assumed for highway=*. See also what happens in inc/access. Reg. Tickers Rule: I don't like it because it is more complex and somehow duplicates the code in inc/access. Reg. the missing highway!=* : Yes, that's needed. I forgot that we disabled the mop up rule for highway=* Gerd ________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Januar 2020 12:03 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] change handling of railway=abandoned Hi Gerd rule should be OK with the addition clause of & highway!=*, but is there any reason not to have what I suggested. Ticker On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 11:36 +0100, Bernhard Hiller wrote:
Hi Gerd, of course, {deletealltags} is a different action: it removes the way completely. "{add access=no}" just makes it unroutable, but leaves it visible on the map.
Lte's take a look at the roads in my example (due to changes during the last couple of hours, be sure to look at last year's version): - the road to the south-west is a tertiary, without explicit access tags, and railway=razed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/326001702/history - the road north-east into Meinershagen is a residential, without explicit access tags, and railway=razed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/617284819/history - the road to the east is a primary, without explicit access tags, and railway=razed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/306731105/history
True, there is another difference: railway=razed is not railway=abandoned. Can we be sure that all those tags used for indicating a former railway, like abandoned - dismantled - disused - razed etc., are always used correctly? I tried an overpass api search for railway=abandoned and highway=*, but could not find out how to do it correctly.
If those roads had railway=abandoned instead, they would no more be routable with your rule. Or is there some catch?
Let's look at some examples showing that railway=abandoned is not always used so strictly (or are milestones next to the way enough hints for the former presence of a railway?): - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121395347 has railway=abandoned, highway=path, with explicit access tags for foot and bicycle. I think the rule won't cause trouble here.
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/130369751 has railway=abandoned, path=cycleway, and an access tag for foot (but not for bicycle). I think the rule would then remove the access of bicycles to that cycleway.
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/101937226 has not yet been detected by the historic railway mappers, and lacks any railway tags. The rule won't do anything here ;-)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/561220394 has railway=abandoned, path=cycleway, and access tags for foot and bicycle. The rule won't cause trouble here.
We should make sure that "access" won't be removed from highways with that rule.
Kind regards, Bernhard
Am 20.01.2020 um 19:49 schrieb Gerd Petermann:
Hi Bernhard,
well, {add access=no} is very different to action {deletealltags} My thinking is that a railway=abandoned without highway=* still might be used as a highway if a tag like foot=yes or bicycle=yes exists. Tickers idea should have more or less the same effect.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: Bernhard Hiller <bhil@gmx.de> Gesendet: Montag, 20. Januar 2020 19:41 An: Gerd Petermann Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] change handling of railway=abandoned
Hi Gerd, "add access=no" is a very dangerous option. In my style, I added a rule for removing such ways completely. And it failed terribly - today, there may be public roads on previous railways. See also my post in the forum at https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=66451 Kind regards, Bernhard
Am 18.01.2020 um 19:51 schrieb Gerd Petermann:
Hi all,
the default style has this rule: # following really should be removed, but see: http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2016q3/025104.html railway«andoned [0x0a road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 22]
I agree with Ticker that it is not a good idea to make such a way routable. I would accept this when it has also a tag like bicycle=s. I found a few ways like this, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/122268824 (I wonder why nobody added a highway tag since 2011) BUT we should not assume access=s for a railway«andoned. So, what about this: railway«andoned {add access=no} [0x0a road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 22]
Gerd
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi The advantages of my rule is that it doesn't create a routable line if there is no need for it and that it can become a footway or cycleway depending on the tags. Gerd's rule would create routable track then disable all access modes. These are chosen as the start/end point of a route if closest and this could be a problem. Ticker On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 11:34 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi,
@Bernhard: adding "access=no" doesn't make a way unroutable when the way has e.g. vehicle=yes or foot=yes. It just changes the default access which is assumed for highway=*. See also what happens in inc/access.
Reg. Tickers Rule: I don't like it because it is more complex and somehow duplicates the code in inc/access.
Reg. the missing highway!=* : Yes, that's needed. I forgot that we disabled the mop up rule for highway=*
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Januar 2020 12:03 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] change handling of railway=abandoned
Hi
Gerd rule should be OK with the addition clause of & highway!=*, but is there any reason not to have what I suggested.
Ticker
On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 11:36 +0100, Bernhard Hiller wrote:
Hi Gerd, of course, {deletealltags} is a different action: it removes the way completely. "{add access=no}" just makes it unroutable, but leaves it visible on the map.
Lte's take a look at the roads in my example (due to changes during the last couple of hours, be sure to look at last year's version): - the road to the south-west is a tertiary, without explicit access tags, and railway=razed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/326001702/history - the road north-east into Meinershagen is a residential, without explicit access tags, and railway=razed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/617284819/history - the road to the east is a primary, without explicit access tags, and railway=razed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/306731105/history
True, there is another difference: railway=razed is not railway=abandoned. Can we be sure that all those tags used for indicating a former railway, like abandoned - dismantled - disused - razed etc., are always used correctly? I tried an overpass api search for railway=abandoned and highway=*, but could not find out how to do it correctly.
If those roads had railway=abandoned instead, they would no more be routable with your rule. Or is there some catch?
Let's look at some examples showing that railway=abandoned is not always used so strictly (or are milestones next to the way enough hints for the former presence of a railway?): - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121395347 has railway=abandoned, highway=path, with explicit access tags for foot and bicycle. I think the rule won't cause trouble here.
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/130369751 has railway=abandoned, path=cycleway, and an access tag for foot (but not for bicycle). I think the rule would then remove the access of bicycles to that cycleway.
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/101937226 has not yet been detected by the historic railway mappers, and lacks any railway tags. The rule won't do anything here ;-)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/561220394 has railway=abandoned, path=cycleway, and access tags for foot and bicycle. The rule won't cause trouble here.
We should make sure that "access" won't be removed from highways with that rule.
Kind regards, Bernhard
Am 20.01.2020 um 19:49 schrieb Gerd Petermann:
Hi Bernhard,
well, {add access=no} is very different to action {deletealltags} My thinking is that a railway=abandoned without highway=* still might be used as a highway if a tag like foot=yes or bicycle=yes exists. Tickers idea should have more or less the same effect.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: Bernhard Hiller <bhil@gmx.de> Gesendet: Montag, 20. Januar 2020 19:41 An: Gerd Petermann Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] change handling of railway=abandoned
Hi Gerd, "add access=no" is a very dangerous option. In my style, I added a rule for removing such ways completely. And it failed terribly - today, there may be public roads on previous railways. See also my post in the forum at https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=66451 Kind regards, Bernhard
Am 18.01.2020 um 19:51 schrieb Gerd Petermann:
Hi all,
the default style has this rule: # following really should be removed, but see: http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2016q3/025104.htm l railway«andoned [0x0a road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 22]
I agree with Ticker that it is not a good idea to make such a way routable. I would accept this when it has also a tag like bicycle=s. I found a few ways like this, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/122268824 (I wonder why nobody added a highway tag since 2011) BUT we should not assume access=s for a railway«andoned. So, what about this: railway«andoned {add access=no} [0x0a road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 22]
Gerd
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Ticker, you are right, that's a good point. Gerd ________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Januar 2020 13:18 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] change handling of railway=abandoned Hi The advantages of my rule is that it doesn't create a routable line if there is no need for it and that it can become a footway or cycleway depending on the tags. Gerd's rule would create routable track then disable all access modes. These are chosen as the start/end point of a route if closest and this could be a problem. Ticker On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 11:34 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi,
@Bernhard: adding "access=no" doesn't make a way unroutable when the way has e.g. vehicle=yes or foot=yes. It just changes the default access which is assumed for highway=*. See also what happens in inc/access.
Reg. Tickers Rule: I don't like it because it is more complex and somehow duplicates the code in inc/access.
Reg. the missing highway!=* : Yes, that's needed. I forgot that we disabled the mop up rule for highway=*
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Januar 2020 12:03 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] change handling of railway=abandoned
Hi
Gerd rule should be OK with the addition clause of & highway!=*, but is there any reason not to have what I suggested.
Ticker
On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 11:36 +0100, Bernhard Hiller wrote:
Hi Gerd, of course, {deletealltags} is a different action: it removes the way completely. "{add access=no}" just makes it unroutable, but leaves it visible on the map.
Lte's take a look at the roads in my example (due to changes during the last couple of hours, be sure to look at last year's version): - the road to the south-west is a tertiary, without explicit access tags, and railway=razed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/326001702/history - the road north-east into Meinershagen is a residential, without explicit access tags, and railway=razed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/617284819/history - the road to the east is a primary, without explicit access tags, and railway=razed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/306731105/history
True, there is another difference: railway=razed is not railway=abandoned. Can we be sure that all those tags used for indicating a former railway, like abandoned - dismantled - disused - razed etc., are always used correctly? I tried an overpass api search for railway=abandoned and highway=*, but could not find out how to do it correctly.
If those roads had railway=abandoned instead, they would no more be routable with your rule. Or is there some catch?
Let's look at some examples showing that railway=abandoned is not always used so strictly (or are milestones next to the way enough hints for the former presence of a railway?): - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121395347 has railway=abandoned, highway=path, with explicit access tags for foot and bicycle. I think the rule won't cause trouble here.
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/130369751 has railway=abandoned, path=cycleway, and an access tag for foot (but not for bicycle). I think the rule would then remove the access of bicycles to that cycleway.
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/101937226 has not yet been detected by the historic railway mappers, and lacks any railway tags. The rule won't do anything here ;-)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/561220394 has railway=abandoned, path=cycleway, and access tags for foot and bicycle. The rule won't cause trouble here.
We should make sure that "access" won't be removed from highways with that rule.
Kind regards, Bernhard
Am 20.01.2020 um 19:49 schrieb Gerd Petermann:
Hi Bernhard,
well, {add access=no} is very different to action {deletealltags} My thinking is that a railway=abandoned without highway=* still might be used as a highway if a tag like foot=yes or bicycle=yes exists. Tickers idea should have more or less the same effect.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: Bernhard Hiller <bhil@gmx.de> Gesendet: Montag, 20. Januar 2020 19:41 An: Gerd Petermann Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] change handling of railway=abandoned
Hi Gerd, "add access=no" is a very dangerous option. In my style, I added a rule for removing such ways completely. And it failed terribly - today, there may be public roads on previous railways. See also my post in the forum at https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=66451 Kind regards, Bernhard
Am 18.01.2020 um 19:51 schrieb Gerd Petermann:
Hi all,
the default style has this rule: # following really should be removed, but see: http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2016q3/025104.htm l railway«andoned [0x0a road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 22]
I agree with Ticker that it is not a good idea to make such a way routable. I would accept this when it has also a tag like bicycle=s. I found a few ways like this, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/122268824 (I wonder why nobody added a highway tag since 2011) BUT we should not assume access=s for a railway«andoned. So, what about this: railway«andoned {add access=no} [0x0a road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 22]
Gerd
_______________________________________________ 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
mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
I think part of the problem is that railway=abandonded is not a statement either way about whether it is reasonably physically traversable on foot whether there is any right of access so I guess I don't see why a way with railway=abandonded and no highway tags should be presumed routable in the first place. I guess the real issue is that garmin thinks it is? (Also, for US people, note that OSM's definition of abandoned is different from the US definition. The US definition is a legal thing, and some rails that are US-abandoned have tracks present. Nothing to do in mkgmap, but if you are a US railfan and not an OSM expert, you'll assume wrong.)
Hi Greg, the previous rule existed since 2009 and I never liked it. It is not a special case in Garmin software but a workaround to fix improper tagging. I'd be happy to remove the new rule completely. If I got that right only Minko wants it. See again http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2016q3/025104.html Gerd ________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Greg Troxel <gdt@lexort.com> Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Januar 2020 17:26 An: Ticker Berkin Cc: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] change handling of railway=abandoned I think part of the problem is that railway=abandonded is not a statement either way about whether it is reasonably physically traversable on foot whether there is any right of access so I guess I don't see why a way with railway=abandonded and no highway tags should be presumed routable in the first place. I guess the real issue is that garmin thinks it is? (Also, for US people, note that OSM's definition of abandoned is different from the US definition. The US definition is a legal thing, and some rails that are US-abandoned have tracks present. Nothing to do in mkgmap, but if you are a US railfan and not an OSM expert, you'll assume wrong.) _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Just for the sake of argument: I don't like [access=no]. It's suggesting [access=no] is "default" access (which it's not). Next step is to add the Exceptions: [bicycle=yes], [foot=yes]. Double denial, Conflicting information, Contradictio in terminis. Also wondering: when is [access=no] - ever - correct? Nuclear power plant? No: [access=private] (staff). Nature Reserve (restricted access)? No: [access=private] (staff)/emergency. Abandoned railway? No highway implies: "no access". IMO: [railway=abandoned] is a property of (most typical) a cycleway, indicating max 2% incline, straight way (dull, imo), often "cutting=yes" (so: no view). Also: not two ways (railway and highway), but one way only. Either railway OR highway (+railway tag as property). In the Netherlands this "sloppy mapping" (IMO) resulted in ERRORS after MANY years. 1. [highway=footway] 2. [highway=path] (because without traffic_sign, SOME Mappers argue: this is not a footway) 3. [highway=path] + [access=no] (because bicycle/moped/mofa now have default access) + foot=yes (explicitly mapping the exception) 4. IMPROVED by UPDATE: [highway=footway] + [access=no] + [foot=yes] 5. DELETE [foot=yes] (because this is default access: "Needless tagging") 5. NOW on the MAP: [highway=footway] + [access=no] This is an Error: to Resolve many Changesets have been Reverted by DWG in which "foot = yes" was deleted ("Needless tagging") AND [foot=yes] was ADDED. Not only for [highway=footway] + [access=no] (tens of ways, at most) BUT for ALL Reverted footways (thousands). 6. NOW on the MAP: [highway=footway] + [foot=yes] (thousands of footways in the Netherlands) 7. JOSM now complains for EVERY Changeset Validation: "unnecessary tag - foot=yes|designated is unnecessary for highway=footway|pedestrian" And I don't "dare" to delete…. Other example: [highway=unclassified/track/path] + [access=no] + [foot=yes] + [bicycle=yes] I would prefer: [highway=unclassified] + [motor_vehicle=no] Long time ago I argued on a forum: I buy bread in a bakery: "One brown bread please." "Here you are. Anything else?" "No! Two croissants." / AnkEric -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Mkgmap-Development-f5324443.html
participants (6)
-
AnkEric -
Bernhard Hiller -
Gerd Petermann -
Gerd Petermann
-
Greg Troxel -
Ticker Berkin