[mkgmap-dev] Please test branch NET-no-NOD

Sun Oct 20 08:17:18 BST 2019

Hi Gerd

I've run this on my local area and checked some of the larger lengths
of tracks unconnected to the main nextwork and these were as expected.
Some could be connected, some should have not been highways and the
rest I looked at were footpaths.

I'll look at a few more and report tomorrow - I'm away today.

Ticker

On Sat, 2019-10-19 at 12:48 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> Hi Ticker,
> 
> yes, it is already quite complicated. In Australia I see islands of
> private tracks with a total length of > 50.000 m.
> 
> I've also not yet decided where the checks should be done
> (StyledConverter or RoadNetwork). StyledConverter still knows the OSM
> way, RoadNetwork doesn't.
> On the other hand RoadNetwork does all the network calculations and
> therefore it seems stupid to code them also in StyledConverter.
> 
> Please check r4304:
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev=4304
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/download/mkgmap-NET-no-NOD-r4304.zip
> 
> Sample output:
> SEVERE (RoadNetwork): test/resources/in/osm/uk-test-1.osm.gz: check
> for routing islands found 5 islands
> SEVERE (RoadNetwork): test/resources/in/osm/uk-test-1.osm.gz: routing
> island with  1 routing node(s) at 51.554362,-0.197136 has length 156
> m
> SEVERE (RoadNetwork): test/resources/in/osm/uk-test-1.osm.gz: routing
> island with  2 routing node(s) at 51.623528,-0.143968 has length 263
> m
> SEVERE (RoadNetwork): test/resources/in/osm/uk-test-1.osm.gz: routing
> island with  2 routing node(s) at 51.623368,-0.146458 has length 1063
> m
> SEVERE (RoadNetwork): test/resources/in/osm/uk-test-1.osm.gz: routing
> island with  3 routing node(s) at 51.640080,-0.143457 has length 282
> m
> SEVERE (RoadNetwork): test/resources/in/osm/uk-test-1.osm.gz: routing
> island with  4 routing node(s) at 51.583387,-0.157835 has length 2250
> m
> SEVERE (RoadNetwork): test/resources/in/osm/uk-test-1.osm.gz: routing
> island check took 20 ms
> 
> All islands are reported, no matter how many nodes there are. There
> is no particular order for now.
> Sample output when option --x-check-routing-island-len=500 is used:
> ...
> SEVERE (RoadNetwork): e:\osm_out_work\wales\63240001.osm.pbf: routing
> island with  2 routing node(s) at 53.326519,-3.453854 has length 697
> m
> SEVERE (RoadNetwork): e:\osm_out_work\wales\63240001.osm.pbf: routing
> island with  2 routing node(s) at 53.314260,-3.502073 has length 106
> m
> SEVERE (RoadDef): e:\osm_out_work\wales\63240001.osm.pbf: road (
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/511855016) is removed from
> NOD, length: 105 m
> SEVERE (RoadDef): e:\osm_out_work\wales\63240001.osm.pbf: road (
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/511855016) is removed from
> NOD, length: 1 m
> SEVERE (RoadNetwork): e:\osm_out_work\wales\63240001.osm.pbf: routing
> island with  2 routing node(s) at 53.313371,-3.501693 has length 109
> m
> SEVERE (RoadDef): e:\osm_out_work\wales\63240001.osm.pbf: road (
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/511855022) is removed from
> NOD, length: 107 m
> SEVERE (RoadDef): e:\osm_out_work\wales\63240001.osm.pbf: road (
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/511855022) is removed from
> NOD, length: 2 m
> SEVERE (RoadNetwork): e:\osm_out_work\wales\63240001.osm.pbf: routing
> island with  2 routing node(s) at 53.313692,-3.502430 has length 25 m
> SEVERE (RoadDef): e:\osm_out_work\wales\63240001.osm.pbf: road (
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/511855021) is removed from
> NOD, length: 22 m
> SEVERE (RoadDef): e:\osm_out_work\wales\63240001.osm.pbf: road (
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/511855021) is removed from
> NOD, length: 3 m
> ...
> It shows that many islands are in fact closed Ways which were split
> for routing purposes, ofter areas.
> 
> Gerd
> ________________________________________
> Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag
> von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap at jagit.co.uk>
> Gesendet: Samstag, 19. Oktober 2019 12:40
> An: Development list for mkgmap
> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Please test branch NET-no-NOD
> 
> Hi Gerd
> 
> Maybe yes, but a long unconnected road is no use for route generation
> except to somewhere else near the same road, which doesn't need route
> generation anyway. Trying to get to anywhere else will probably give
> a
> "route calculation error"
> 
> It occurs to me that almost the examples I've found are small
> networks
> of paths where motor-vehicle=no. These are often the ones that get
> picked up as the closest for starting/ending a car journey (wrong in
> itself) and then cause "route calculation error" because of the
> isolation from the main network.
> 
> Could there be some options to control the cut-off based on number of
> nodes, total length, and non-motor vehicle?
> 
> I realise this is getting complicated.
> 
> Ticker
> 
> 
> On Fri, 2019-10-18 at 15:51 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> > Hi Ticker,
> > 
> > I think it would be better to measure the sum of road lengths
> > instead
> > of the number of nodes.
> > In some areas you may have unconnected roads with many km length,
> > e.g. in Canada or Australia.
> > 
> > Gerd
> > 
> > ________________________________________
> > Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag
> > von Gerd Petermann <gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com>
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Oktober 2019 17:02
> > An: Development list for mkgmap
> > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Please test branch NET-no-NOD
> > 
> > Hi Ticker,
> > 
> > okay, I am working on the part that removes those islands from NOD.
> > I
> > am developing it with the NET-no-NOD branch.
> > With trunk you get higher counts as each end of an unconnected way
> > is
> > also a routing node.
> > 
> > Gerd
> > 
> > ________________________________________
> > Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag
> > von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap at jagit.co.uk>
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Oktober 2019 16:28
> > An: Development list for mkgmap
> > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Please test branch NET-no-NOD
> > 
> > Hi Gerd
> > 
> > That runs OK.
> > 
> > As before, I get lots of 2 node roads - often bridges over streams
> > in
> > open land, and quite a few (about 1/10 the number of the 2 noders)
> > are
> > 3 and 4 nodes - frequently paths between buildings in schools /
> > campuses and short bits of path at either end of the bridges in
> > open
> > land.
> > 
> > I upped the test from 5 to 10 and got more of the same + networks
> > of
> > short paths on golf courses, walkways on piers (which should have
> > been
> > connected to something), paths in an enclosed quadrangle, etc, etc
> > 
> > All of these I would consider to be a hindrance to route
> > calculations.
> > 
> > Having an option, defaulting to, say, 10, to stop these road
> > -islands
> > being added to NOD must be a good idea. Setting the value to 0
> > would
> > give the current behaviour
> > 
> > Ticker
> > 
> > On Fri, 2019-10-18 at 12:35 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> > > Hi Ticker,
> > > 
> > > here is the patch without recursive call.
> > > 
> > > Gerd
> > > 
> > > ________________________________________
> > > Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im
> > > Auftrag
> > > von Gerd Petermann <gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com>
> > > Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Oktober 2019 12:46
> > > An: Development list for mkgmap
> > > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Please test branch NET-no-NOD
> > > 
> > > Hi Ticker,
> > > 
> > > thanks for testing. I'll work on a patch without recursive calls.
> > > 
> > > Gerd
> > > 
> > > ________________________________________
> > > Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im
> > > Auftrag
> > > von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap at jagit.co.uk>
> > > Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Oktober 2019 12:41
> > > An: Development list for mkgmap
> > > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Please test branch NET-no-NOD
> > > 
> > > Hi Gerd
> > > 
> > > I've applied the patch to my 'current' version and tried running
> > > it
> > > but
> > > it gives:
> > > 
> > > java.lang.StackOverflowError
> > >         at
> > > uk.me.parabola.imgfmt.app.net.RouteNode.visitNet(RouteNode.java:9
> > > 38
> > > )
> > >         at
> > > uk.me.parabola.imgfmt.app.net.RouteNode.visitNet(RouteNode.java:9
> > > 41
> > > )
> > > ...  1020 lines like this ...
> > >         at
> > > uk.me.parabola.imgfmt.app.net.RouteNode.visitNet(RouteNode.java:9
> > > 41
> > > )
> > >         at
> > > uk.me.parabola.imgfmt.app.net.RouteNode.visitNet(RouteNode.java:9
> > > 41
> > > )
> > > Exiting - if you want to carry on regardless, use the --keep
> > > -going
> > > option
> > > 
> > > My source had the patches "avoid-to-split-via-ways.patch" and
> > > "only_with_via_ways.patch". I can remove these and try again if
> > > you
> > > think there might be an interaction.
> > > 
> > > I don't think there is a need to try and check on islands of
> > > different
> > > access modes; the apparent behaviour of my device is that it
> > > finds
> > > the
> > > closest highway of any type to get into or out of the main road
> > > network. ie, if here is a footpath closer to the destination that
> > > any
> > > motor-vehicle road, car route planning will direct me onto it.
> > > 
> > > Ticker
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 2019-10-18 at 09:25 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> > > > Hi Ticker,
> > > > 
> > > > please check: attached is a simple patch that implements the
> > > > calculation of routing islands.
> > > > It just reports islands with less than 5 routing nodes and the
> > > > position of one of the nodes.
> > > > It ignores such islands which have at least one node that is a
> > > > boundary node.
> > > > Remember that we also create nodes oncountry borders. Maybe
> > > > those
> > > > should be ignored here?
> > > > 
> > > > A more detailed test might also check the access attributes, so
> > > > that
> > > > we report islands for pedestrian, bicycle etc.
> > > > 
> > > > The patch doesn't change the data written to the img files.
> > > > Please
> > > > play with it and let me know how it works for you.
> > > > 
> > > > Gerd
> > > > 
> > > > ________________________________________
> > > > Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im
> > > > Auftrag
> > > > von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap at jagit.co.uk>
> > > > Gesendet: Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 19:34
> > > > An: Development list for mkgmap
> > > > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Please test branch NET-no-NOD
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Gerd
> > > > 
> > > > I was thinking of a threshold (maybe < 5) and then not adding
> > > > any
> > > > of
> > > > them to NOD.
> > > > 
> > > > The reason is that a while ago I found many instances where
> > > > tracks
> > > > lead
> > > > up to the edge of car-parks but didn't join to each other or
> > > > the
> > > > car
> > > > -park access road and so walking routing, where one was
> > > > expected
> > > > to
> > > > cross the car-park, didn't work. I tried adding a footway
> > > > around
> > > > the
> > > > edge of the car-park and this helped in a lot of cases but I
> > > > got
> > > > driving route-calculation-error in or out of the car-park if
> > > > the
> > > > access
> > > > road wasn't correctly specified. Your latest change will help
> > > > in
> > > > a
> > > > lot
> > > > of instances but sometimes there car-park was defined by more
> > > > than
> > > > 1
> > > > line.
> > > > 
> > > > Ticker
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 10:10 -0700, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> > > > > Ticker Berkin wrote
> > > > > > Do you attempt to isolate small road networks that are not
> > > > > > connected to
> > > > > > the rest of the system or just a single road?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Not yet. Do you think about some kind of threshold value
> > > > > giving
> > > > > the
> > > > > minimal
> > > > > number of connections or maybe a bbox size or a sum of road
> > > > > lengths?
> > > > > if the
> > > > > isolated network is "small" we might not add any of its roads
> > > > > to
> > > > > NOD.
> > > > > Is that what you think about?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Gerd
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --
> > > > > Sent from:
> > > > > http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Mkgmap-Development-f5324443.ht
> > > > > ml
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev