[mkgmap-dev] overlapping highways and route restrictions

Wed Apr 4 11:46:44 BST 2018

okay that's fine. I think the result will lead to nearly no more actual
problem cases...

On 4 April 2018 at 12:44, Gerd Petermann <gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Felix,
>
> you may try r4147. I plan to add code to merge different labels of
> overlapping ways, I think I can't do much more.
>
> Gerd
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von
> Felix Hartmann <extremecarver at gmail.com>
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. April 2018 11:44:05
> An: Development list for mkgmap
> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] overlapping highways and route restrictions
>
> Yes I think that could be problematic. I'm not sure how it will end up. I
> do not create routable lines from the relations file directly, I use the
> set command and then in the lines file the additional ways are created - so
> that if one line has 1 or X route relations, there will be no difference.
> However that assumes they are all added to the same line I guess. So if
> different routes are copied onto different overlapping ways this principle
> would go wrong - it won't be a problem if the underlying overlaying ways
> are moved/merged before the handling of the relations however.
>
> I have so far seen mostly cases where two overlaying ways were both part
> of the same route relation - not of different route relations.
>
> On 4 April 2018 at 11:10, Gerd Petermann <gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com
> <mailto:gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi Felix,
>
> well, you started to mention route relations:
> "The case of overlapping ways being part of different route relations on
> the other hand I've seen quite often - in that case I think it's best to
> just add all route relations to one way, and remove the other one."
> My understanding is that the code in mkgmap doesn't have to care about
> route relations (e.g. type=route, route=bicycle), this is done in the
> style. With your style those might cause more trouble because you add more
> routable lines for the members but the current overlap remover will only
> remove segments with more or less identical attributes.
> What you suggest requires a completely different approach, right?
>
> Gerd
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk<mailto:mkgmap-
> dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk>> im Auftrag von Felix Hartmann <
> extremecarver at gmail.com<mailto:extremecarver at gmail.com>>
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. April 2018 10:58:43
> An: Development list for mkgmap
> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] overlapping highways and route restrictions
>
> yes I know - but even though both ways you linked have different turn
> restriction ID - the content of the turn restriction is identical (only
> straight on).
>
> On 4 April 2018 at 10:54, Gerd Petermann <gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com
> <mailto:gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com><mailto:g
> petermann_muenchen at hotmail.com<mailto:gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com>>>
> wrote:
> Hi Felix,
>
> yes, 1) would handle the case in my example.
> Just to make sure: I meant turn restrictions, not route relations.
>
> Gerd
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk<mailto:mkgmap-
> dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk><mailto:mkgmap-dev-bounces@
> lists.mkgmap.org.uk<mailto:mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk>>> im
> Auftrag von Felix Hartmann <extremecarver at gmail.com<mailto:
> extremecarver at gmail.com><mailto:extremecarver at gmail.com<mailto:
> extremecarver at gmail.com>>>
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. April 2018 10:48:20
> An: Development list for mkgmap
> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] overlapping highways and route restrictions
>
> For my maps 1) is enough - and warning not even needed. I think it's hard
> to find out what the outcome should be.
> The case of overlapping ways being part of different route relations on
> the other hand I've seen quite often - in that case I think it's best to
> just add all route relations to one way, and remove the other one.
>
> The example you found here - I think is quite possible to solve - both
> restriction relations are identical - so one way including the restriction
> relation can be removed, the route relations copied over. If the
> restriction is having different rules - then however I don't think we can
> solve it correctly (well an exception is if we have overlapping ways in OSM
> which are oneway and opposite to each other - this is a rare case where
> overlapping ways are not to be removed I guess).
>
>
>
> On 4 April 2018 at 10:39, Gerd Petermann <GPetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com
> <mailto:GPetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com><mailto:G
> Petermann_muenchen at hotmail.com<mailto:GPetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com
> >><mailto:GPetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com<mailto:
> GPetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com><mailto:GPetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com
> <mailto:GPetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com>>>> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> please help, I just try to make up my mind what mkgmap should do when it
> finds overlapping road segments and
> one (or both) of the overlaps is a part of a (valid) restriction
> relation.  This doesn't happen very often, but it is possible.
>
> The attached example contains these two overlapping ways, and both are
> members of (different) restriction relations:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48218016
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48218008
>
> (I did not try what the trunk version produces for this mess)
>
> I see different possibilities:
> 1) ignore route restrictions when removing overlaps, remove those which
> are invalid after overlapping segments were removed and log a warning
> 2) ignore overlaps when the ways are members of restriction relations
> 3) complex: remove overlaps but try to "repair" the restriction
>
> I am currently trying to implement 3) but it looks too complicated for
> such a rare case and in the end we have a clear case of wrong input data
> here.
> What do you think?
>
> Gerd
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk<mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> ><mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk<mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.
> mkgmap.org.uk>><mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk<mailto:
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk><mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk<
> mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk>>>
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Felix Hartman - Openmtbmap.org & VeloMap.org
> Schusterbergweg 32/8
> 6020 Innsbruck
> Austria - Österreich
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk<mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> ><mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk<mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.
> mkgmap.org.uk>>
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Felix Hartman - Openmtbmap.org & VeloMap.org
> Schusterbergweg 32/8
> 6020 Innsbruck
> Austria - Österreich
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Felix Hartman - Openmtbmap.org & VeloMap.org
> Schusterbergweg 32/8
> 6020 Innsbruck
> Austria - Österreich
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Schusterbergweg 32/8
6020 Innsbruck
Austria - Österreich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/attachments/20180404/17d03a73/attachment-0001.html>