[mkgmap-dev] highway=razed

[Gerd Petermann]

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

[Andrzej Popowski]

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

[Gerd Petermann]

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.

[Andrzej Popowski]

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

[Gerd Petermann]

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-***@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> From: ***@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-***@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

[GerdP]

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-***@.org

>> From:

> ***@.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-***@.org

>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list

> mkgmap-***@.org

> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev





--
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.

[Marko Mäkelä]

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

[Gerd Petermann]

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-***@lists.mkgmap.org.uk <mkgmap-dev-***@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Marko Mäkelä <***@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