[mkgmap-dev] FW: --make-opposite-cycleways option

Sun Mar 8 10:23:30 GMT 2015

HI Gerd, I have now investigated further and have discovered that the
difference between my lines file that works and the default that doesn't is
that I don't include inc/roadspeed. The setting of mkgmap:road-speed-class
in this file seems to break the routing when an opposite cycleway is added
from the style file. This setting is not mentioned in the style manual, so I
don't know what it is supposed to do. Can you take a look at this?

Thanks,
Mike

From: Gerd Petermann [mailto:gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com] 
Sent: 07 March 2015 18:29
To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] FW: --make-opposite-cycleways option

Hi Mike,

yes, also sounds like a good idea to me,
but doesn't solve the initial problem regarding 
routing in the cycleway.

Gerd
  _____  

From: mike at tvage.co.uk <mailto:mike at tvage.co.uk> 
To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk <mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> 
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 13:07:47 +0000
Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] FW: --make-opposite-cycleways option
Hi Gerd, I suggest it might be more useful to make it a more general purpose
option for affecting the order of precedence used with the continue
statement, something like mkgmap:precedence=<integer> where negative number
are added before positive ones and the default precedence is 0. This would
allow you to specify a road, bridge and cycleway on the same highway segment
and specify what order they should be created in. Alternatively, the
precedence could be specified as part of the continue statement e.g [0x10
road_class=0 road_speed=0 resolution 24 continue precedence=1] would mean
create after all the matches have been completed

Regards,
Mike
From: Gerd Petermann [mailto:gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com]  
Sent: 07 March 2015 09:12
To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk <mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> 
Subject: [mkgmap-dev] FW: --make-opposite-cycleways option

Hi all,

sorry, I hit the send button by mistake.
...
Did anybody think about this proposal?
2) Maybe we can replace the  --make-opposite-cycleways option by 
a new special tag like mkgmap:add_cycleway=[before|after] ?

The idea is to change the code in mkgmap so that it doesn't create a copy
of the way BEFORE style processing, instead it checks if this tag occurs and
adds a copy with bicycle-only and "oneway=no" after style processing.
The tag value before / after tells mkgmap if the cycleway should be added
before
or after the "normal" way.
I see only one theoretical problem: if the style adds the same OSM way two
or more times
with this tag, should we also add multiple cycleways? And where exactly?
I think we would have to ignore all sub sequent ways.

Gerd
  _____  

Hi Mike,

I think a possible problem with your patch is that you always add the cycle
way
with type 0x10, without further checking the attributes of the highway.

The -make-opposite-cycleways option would add the cycle way with the same
type
as that for the car.

Gerd
  _____  

From: mike at tvage.co.uk <mailto:mike at tvage.co.uk> 
To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk <mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> 
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 00:11:00 +0000
Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] --make-opposite-cycleways option
Hi Gerd, I added the following to the lines file in my style and it works
fine there if I remove the --make-opposite-cycleways option, allowing just
cycling and walking against the flow. However, it doesn't seem to work
correctly if I add it to the default style (it allows cars to go the wrong
way along the one-way street).

highway=* & (oneway=yes | oneway=-1 | oneway=true | oneway=1 |
oneway=reverse) & (oneway:bicycle=no | cycleway=opposite |
cycleway=opposite_lane | cycleway=opposite_track) {delete oneway; delete
cycleway; set access=no; delete foot; delete vehicle; delete motor_vehicle;
delete motorcar; delete goods; delete hgv; delete psv; delete emergency;
delete taxi; delete bus; add bicycle=yes; set highway=cycleway} [0x10
road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 24 continue]

I can't see why this might be happening. Has anyone any ideas (the attached
patch is what I changed)?

Regards,
Mike

From: Gerd Petermann [mailto:gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com] 
Sent: 04 March 2015 16:22
To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk <mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> 
Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] --make-opposite-cycleways option

Hi Mike,

the style cannot create a way, but it can add multiple routable ways for one
OSM way.
Use "continue" or "continue with actions" for that.

The comment is a bit misleading and I think the code for "old-style" is now
obsolete as well.

Gerd
  _____  

From: mike at tvage.co.uk <mailto:mike at tvage.co.uk> 
To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk <mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> 
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:01:56 +0000
Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] --make-opposite-cycleways option
Hi Gerd, I was not clear what you meant by change the style to produce the
same result, so I provided a change to the style that with the code changes
produces the same result as now. Unless a style can create an extra way, I
can't see how a style can be set up to allow cycling in both directions, but
other traffic only in one direction without using the extra way created by
the --make-opposite-cycleways code. Can a style create a way? I got the list
of tags to delete from the following code which suggested that the following
lines were all access tags (plus a few tags mentioned elsewhere that I also
included):

                public boolean init(ElementSaver saver, EnhancedProperties
props) {

                                if (props.getProperty("old-style", false)) {
                                                // the access tags need to
be loaded if the old style handling
                                                // is active and access
restrictions are handled by the java
                                                // source code and not by
the style
                                                usedTags.add("access");
                                                usedTags.add("bicycle");
                                                usedTags.add("carpool");
                                                usedTags.add("delivery");
                                                usedTags.add("emergency");
                                                usedTags.add("foot");
                                                usedTags.add("goods");
                                                usedTags.add("hgv");
                                                usedTags.add("motorcar");
                                                usedTags.add("motorcycle");
                                                usedTags.add("psv");
                                                usedTags.add("route");
                                                usedTags.add("taxi");
                                }

I gather that route is not an access tag, so I agree that it should not be
included.

Regards,
Mike

From: Gerd Petermann [mailto:gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com] 
Sent: 04 March 2015 05:31
To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk <mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> 
Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] --make-opposite-cycleways option

Hi Mike,

as I said, I'd be more happy to have a patch that remove's the option
and shows how to change the default style instead to get the same result 
as with your patch.

Your patch tries to remove all kinds of tags which might lead to wrong
routing:
+        cycleWay.deleteTag("vehicle");
+        cycleWay.deleteTag("motor_vehicle");
+        cycleWay.deleteTag("carpool");
+        cycleWay.deleteTag("delivery");
+        cycleWay.deleteTag("emergency");
+        cycleWay.deleteTag("foot");
+        cycleWay.deleteTag("goods");
+        cycleWay.deleteTag("hgv");
+        cycleWay.deleteTag("motorcar");
+        cycleWay.deleteTag("motorcycle");
+        cycleWay.deleteTag("psv");
+        cycleWay.deleteTag("route");
+        cycleWay.deleteTag("taxi");
+        cycleWay.deleteTag("bus");
+        cycleWay.deleteTag("truck"); 

Please explain why you remove route=* .
I think that one should be kept.

Gerd
  _____  

From: mike at tvage.co.uk <mailto:mike at tvage.co.uk> 
To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk <mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> 
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 19:45:00 +0000
Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] --make-opposite-cycleways option
HI Gerd, the attached updated patch adds a line to the default style that
can be uncommented if you want to see the opposite cycleway names as they
are currently.

Regards,
Mike

From: Gerd Petermann [mailto:gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com] 
Sent: 03 March 2015 08:26
To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk <mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> 
Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] --make-opposite-cycleways option

Hi Mike,

I think you are right  regarding the access tags.
The current solution in combination with the default style
might route a truck through the wrong direction of a oneway.
Thanks for pointing this out.

If I got it right, most style developers don't use this option,
they prefer to have the logic in the rules.
Maybe this is another argument to remove the option
instead of adding code to make it work in special cases?

Is anybody able to change the default style so that it produces
the same result ?

Gerd
From: mike at tvage.co.uk <mailto:mike at tvage.co.uk> 
To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk <mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> 
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 22:46:07 +0000
Subject: [mkgmap-dev] --make-opposite-cycleways option
Dear all,

When using the --make-opposite-cycleways option, I notice that the address
index adds a road name of the actual road name suffixed with " (cycleway)".
For me at least, this is undesirable. Also the generated name does not
conform to the OSM naming convention of not including any descriptive
information in names. I therefore propose that the name of an opposite
cycleway be set to the same as the original road name, and that users who
want to name the opposite cycleway differently should use the style file to
rename it.

In looking at the code that produces the opposite cycleway, I also believe
there is an error in the way it handles access tags - the code currently
sets access=no, bicycle=yes and foot=no, but ignores all other access tags.
Hence if (for example) the road has psv=yes on it, the generated cycleway
will also have psv=yes (unless I am misunderstanding something in the
handling of access tags). 

I therefore submit the attached patch for trial.

Regards,
Mike

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk <mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk>
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/attachments/20150308/e903762d/attachment-0001.html>