[mkgmap-dev] [Patch v3] sharp angles

Mon Sep 7 10:29:24 BST 2015

Yes - there is no different time penalty based on road class. It's just
that motorcar is much more focusing on them than any other mode and I would
guess besides the penalties  there are some other factors that only start
to be considered on longer routes.  And most of the difference for vehicles
only appear on longer distances - which makes assessing differences really
difficult.

On 7 September 2015 at 11:20, Gerd Petermann <
gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Felix,
>
> forgot to mention that I found no prove that the road class has an impact
> on the penalty,
> in other words: I found no relation between road class and calculated
> travel time when the
> road speed is the same.
> Maybe this is different for longer routes, my test contains just for arcs
> with the 2nd and 3rd
> building the sharp angle. My test scenario doesn't allow to use other
> roads.
>
> Reg. different vehicles:
> I guess that they have different preferences regarding paved/unpaved
> roads, maybe also
> regarding road class. And maybe the penalties differ also.
>
> I'm now working out how the left turns differ from right turns.
>
> Gerd
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 09:33:56 +0200
>
> From: extremecarver at gmail.com
> To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] [Patch v3] sharp angles
>
> Oh - and one thing is sure. In Basecamp Dirt-Bike and ATV have the same
> penalties as driving - but the algo differs quite a lot. For "difficult"
> long routes - it works much better than driving. Driving seems to have some
> hidden preference really for long straight highway type of drives...
>
> On 7 September 2015 at 09:32, Felix Hartmann <extremecarver at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Oh wow - I never did it so scientific. I just changed angles a bit or
> changed roadspeed and looked at the effect. One problem is that even if
> using faster time - time is not everything - at least for longer routes.
> But so it seems - angles below 22.5° should really be avoided. However I'm
> not sure if it is really good to change all angles so that they are 45° at
> least - even in nature I would guess in general a route will not take too
> many of them.
> Maybe dropping roadspeed by -1 for angles 22.5-45° if unavoidable would be
> better than changing the angle?
>
> On 7 September 2015 at 08:20, Gerd Petermann <
> gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Felix,
>
> I think I found some more rules, but I still need more tests
> before I can code a new fix.
> I found at least two errors in the v2 + v3 patch, not sure
> if they cause harm or if they just prevent good results.
> One was in the highest speed calculation, the other in the calculation
> of the needed heading change (some angles were not enlarged, others
> were enlarged too much)
>
> Here is what I learned so far:
> 1) The time penalty for a turn depends on the angle and the sum of the
> road speed values of the arcs which are used.
> (I thought that I have to look at the maximum (or minimum))
> 2) the sum of speeds gives a factor which is mulitplied with a value that
> depends
> on the angle. The threshold values for the sum of speeds:
> 0,1 : 0
> 2,3 : 1
> 4,5 : 2
> ...
> 12..13: 6
> 14: 7
> 2) penalties (for a car) are
> steps of 60s for angles below 22.5° (0s, 60 s, 120 s, 180s, ...,420s)
> steps of 12s for angles > 22.5 and below 45 (0s ,12s , ..., 84s)
> steps of 6s for angles > 45 and below 67.5 (0s, 6s, ...42s)
> steps of 3s for angles > 67.5 and below 90 (0s, 3s, ..., 21s)
>
> 3) The penalty is always completely added to the travel time of the 2nd
> arc.
>
> TODO:
> - The above values are for a right turn in a drive-on-right area. I still
> have to
> check left turns.
> - I also have to measure the effect on bicycle routing and maybe other
> vehicles
> - The effect of multiple arcs. They have an effect on the precision of the
> stored
> heading values. Not sure how this changes the results.
> I guess that Garmin will only use an arc with a high speed when
> that is long enough so that the higher speed weights out the penalty .
> A few tests show that it typically prefers the slower roads at the junction
> with the sharp angle, and "jumps" on the faster road at the next node.
>
> If you think that I should also look at other parameters, please let me
> know.
> Gerd
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 15:17:17 +0200
> From: extremecarver at gmail.com
> To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] [Patch v3] sharp angles
>
>
> Yes - I think for the start and end of a route - the algo will choose
> topmost route only. For inbetween sections however not - there it chooses
> the best - at least according to my tests a few years ago...
> There is a max of 6 or 7 roads lying on top of each other - if more it
> will produce a routing error and not go there at all.
>
> And yeah - I also don't know what's best. V2 seemed best to me so far.
>
> On 5 September 2015 at 15:09, GerdP <gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Felix,
>
> okay, I came to similar results with other styles today, so
> maybe I'll revert the change that makes most angles larger.
>
> Reg- --x-cycle-map:
> Without it only angles < 45° are changed to 45°.
> With it and v2, angles were changed to 68° when road speed of an arc is >=
> 3
> and 90° when road_speed >= 5.
> With it and v3, all angles < 90 are changed at junctions with only 3
> directions.
>
> I think the Garmin algo is not really able to handle multiple arcs with
> that your style creates, at least it doesn't seem to "look" at all of them,
> esp. the last part of a route seems always to use the "topmost" road,
> means, the one that was last added in the style (as long as the selected
> vehicle is allowed).
> I think we first have to understand how the Garmin algo works before
> we can try to manipulate the data for better results.
> This is time consuming and error prone, so I'll need a few more days to
> work out facts.
>
> Gerd
>
>
> Felix Hartmann-2 wrote
> > Well - I guess this will never be without errors - with Patch v3 there
> > is again a little loop - now again at the first place:
> >
> >
> > (only happens with "Shorter Distance" and one of the
> > driving/motorcycle/Dirtbike and so on profiles..).
> >
> > Also on some other places still detours - in general "Shorter Distance"
> > seems to be much more problematic than "faster time". So for sharp turns
> > - ironically - shorter distance chooses the detour to avoid the sharp
> > turn.
> >
> >
> > I'm not really sure patch v3 is better than v2 however. Results are
> > 50/50 better/worse. However the arrival times got a bit slower (even if
> > following exactly the same route). I always tried with --x-cycle-map
> > switch - never without. I'm still not so sure what this option really
> > changes for outcome in the end.
> > So - additional intersection roads would still be king IMHO... (but yes
> > I know - not possible).
> >
> >
> >
> > On 04.09.2015 19:34, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> attached is v3, only small changes:
> >> 1) the message "maybe duplicated OSM way " was printed too often
> >> 2) with --x-cycle-map, change the headings
> >> at junctions with only three different arcs so that angles of 90° or
> more
> >> are created.
> >>
> >> If I hear no complains I'll commit this patch on monday,
> >> probably without the --x-fix-sharp-angles switch.
> >>
> >> I am still trying to work out in what case the Garmin routing algo
> >> prefers a detour, so maybe I find more improvements later.
> >>
> >> Ciao,
> >> Gerd
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> >>
>
> > mkgmap-dev at .org
>
> >> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> >
> > --
> > keep on biking and discovering new trails
> >
> > Felix
> > openmtbmap.org & www.velomap.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mkgmap-dev mailing list
>
> > mkgmap-dev at .org
>
> > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> >
> > ajjdjdgb.png (24K)
> > <http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/attachment/5854037/0/ajjdjdgb.png>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Patch-v3-sharp-angles-tp5853996p5854043.html
> Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>
>
>
>
> --
> Felix Hartman - Openmtbmap.org & VeloMap.org
> Floragasse 9/11
> 1040 Wien
> Austria - Österreich
>
> _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list
> 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
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>
>
>
>
> --
> Felix Hartman - Openmtbmap.org & VeloMap.org
> Floragasse 9/11
> 1040 Wien
> Austria - Österreich
>
>
>
>
> --
> Felix Hartman - Openmtbmap.org & VeloMap.org
> Floragasse 9/11
> 1040 Wien
> Austria - Österreich
>
> _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list
> 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
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>

-- 
Felix Hartman - Openmtbmap.org & VeloMap.org
Floragasse 9/11
1040 Wien
Austria - Österreich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/attachments/20150907/0c3e3882/attachment-0001.html>