[mkgmap-dev] change handling of railway=abandoned

Tue Jan 21 11:34:45 GMT 2020

Hi,

@Bernhard:
adding "access=no" doesn't make a way unroutable when the way has e.g. vehicle=yes or foot=yes. It just changes the default
access which is assumed for highway=*. See also what happens in inc/access.

Reg. Tickers Rule:
I don't like it because it is more complex and somehow duplicates the code in inc/access.

Reg. the missing highway!=* : Yes, that's needed. I forgot that we disabled the mop up rule for highway=*

Gerd

________________________________________
Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap at jagit.co.uk>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Januar 2020 12:03
An: Development list for mkgmap
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] change handling of railway=abandoned

Hi

Gerd rule should be OK with the addition clause of & highway!=*, but is
there any reason not to have what I suggested.

Ticker

On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 11:36 +0100, Bernhard Hiller wrote:
> Hi Gerd,
> of course, {deletealltags} is a different action: it removes the way
> completely. "{add access=no}" just makes it unroutable, but leaves it
> visible on the map.
>
> Lte's take a look at the roads in my example (due to changes during
> the
> last couple of hours, be sure to look at last year's version):
> - the road to the south-west is a tertiary, without explicit access
> tags, and railway=razed:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/326001702/history
> - the road north-east into Meinershagen is a residential, without
> explicit access tags, and railway=razed:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/617284819/history
> - the road to the east is a primary, without explicit access tags,
> and
> railway=razed:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/306731105/history
>
> True, there is another difference: railway=razed is not
> railway=abandoned. Can we be sure that all those tags used for
> indicating a former railway, like abandoned - dismantled - disused -
> razed etc., are always used correctly? I tried an overpass api search
> for railway=abandoned and highway=*, but could not find out how to do
> it
> correctly.
>
> If those roads had railway=abandoned instead, they would no more be
> routable with your rule. Or is there some catch?
>
> Let's look at some examples showing that railway=abandoned is not
> always
> used so strictly (or are milestones next to the way enough hints for
> the
> former presence of a railway?):
> - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121395347 has railway=abandoned,
> highway=path, with explicit access tags for foot and bicycle. I think
> the rule won't cause trouble here.
>
> - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/130369751 has railway=abandoned,
> path=cycleway, and an access tag for foot (but not for bicycle). I
> think
> the rule would then remove the access of bicycles to that cycleway.
>
> - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/101937226 has not yet been
> detected
> by the historic railway mappers, and lacks any railway tags. The rule
> won't do anything here ;-)
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/561220394 has railway=abandoned,
> path=cycleway, and access tags for foot and bicycle. The rule won't
> cause trouble here.
>
> We should make sure that "access" won't be removed from highways with
> that rule.
>
> Kind regards,
> Bernhard
>
>
>
> Am 20.01.2020 um 19:49 schrieb Gerd Petermann:
> > Hi Bernhard,
> >
> > well, {add access=no} is very different to action {deletealltags}
> > My thinking is that a railway=abandoned without highway=* still
> > might be used as a highway if a tag like foot=yes or bicycle=yes
> > exists.
> > Tickers idea should have more or less the same effect.
> >
> > Gerd
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > Von: Bernhard Hiller <bhil at gmx.de>
> > Gesendet: Montag, 20. Januar 2020 19:41
> > An: Gerd Petermann
> > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] change handling of railway=abandoned
> >
> > Hi Gerd,
> > "add access=no" is a very dangerous option.
> > In my style, I added a rule for removing such ways completely. And
> > it
> > failed terribly - today, there may be public roads on previous
> > railways.
> > See also my post in the forum at
> > https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=66451
> > Kind regards,
> > Bernhard
> >
> > Am 18.01.2020 um 19:51 schrieb Gerd Petermann:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > the default style has this rule:
> > > # following really should be removed, but see:
> > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2016q3/025104.html
> > > railway«andoned [0x0a road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 22]
> > >
> > > I agree with Ticker that it is not a good idea to make such a way
> > > routable. I would accept this when it has also a tag like
> > > bicycle=s. I found a few ways like this, e.g.
> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/122268824 (I wonder why nobody
> > > added a highway tag since 2011)
> > > BUT we should not assume access=s for a railway«andoned. So, what
> > > about this:
> > > railway«andoned {add access=no} [0x0a road_class=0 road_speed=1
> > > resolution 22]
> > >
> > > Gerd
> > >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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