<div dir="ltr">Heb het kruispunt aangepast met lanes, turn:lanes en afslagbeperkingen. Die laatsten zijn misschien niet echt nodig.<div>Wegens tijdsgebrek heb ik de afzonderlijke fietspaden niet verwijderd, heb wel de ontbrekende stukjes bijgetekend.</div>
<div>Op dit moment gaat mijn interesse uit naar de lanes, turn:lanes, fietspaden aanpassen is voor een andere keer of voor een andere mapper.</div><div><br></div><div>I adapted the intersection with lanes, turn:lanes and turn restriction. The latter might not be really needed.</div>
<div>I did not remove all those separate cycleways (due to lack of time), I did add the missing pieces though.</div><div>At this moment, I'm interested in getting the lanes & turn:lanes done, so I leave the bicycle ways for another time / mapper.</div>
<div><br></div><div>groeten/regards</div><div><br></div><div>m</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Wouter Hamelinck <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wouter.hamelinck@gmail.com" target="_blank">wouter.hamelinck@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Marc,<br>
<br>
The difference between following N47 with separate cycleways and<br>
without separate cycleways is that in the first case the router will<br>
tell you that you are cycling over a road without cycleways, while in<br>
the second case the router will tell you that you are following a road<br>
with lanes. For a cyclist, this is exactly what matters.<br>
Or otherwise said, if for all practical purposes you ignore the<br>
parallel cycleways, why would you map them in the first place? Because<br>
they show on the standard map (aka mapping for the renderer)?<br>
<br>
The badly connected cycleways have nothing to do with device<br>
precision, but everything with network topology. It is the same reason<br>
why a junction between two roads should happen in one node and why two<br>
nodes very very very close to each other is not good enough.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
wouter<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Marc Gemis <<a href="mailto:marc.gemis@gmail.com">marc.gemis@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Jo,<br>
><br>
> a can of worms ? I hope it , this mailing list is too quiet :-)<br>
><br>
> Wouter,<br>
><br>
> While I understand that for routing one does not need the separate<br>
> cycleways, I don't see much difference in a router that sends me over the<br>
> N47 with separate cycleways (illegal in your eyes) or without separate<br>
> cycleways (ok for you).<br>
><br>
> The possible problem with a badly connected separate cycleway, is that a GPS<br>
> with very high precision, won't let me make the second left turn into Baan<br>
> nr. 90<br>
><br>
> So as long as the N47 is not tagged with bicycle = no, there won't be any<br>
> problem IMHO<br>
> But as you wrote, you get the same result with less work by putting tags on<br>
> the main road.<br>
><br>
> regards<br>
><br>
> m<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Wouter Hamelinck<br>
> <<a href="mailto:wouter.hamelinck@gmail.com">wouter.hamelinck@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> OK, I'll bite about the cycleway.<br>
>><br>
>> Go a bit south and you will see something called Macharisdreef and<br>
>> something called Baan nr. 90. Imagine you want to cycle from<br>
>> Macharisdreef to Baan nr. 90 along that N47 and use only the map data<br>
>> as a routing algorithm would do.<br>
>> * First attempt: well it is obvious, you just take the cycleway at the<br>
>> east of the N47 to cycle from the one to the other. Shortest, lots of<br>
>> cycleway, it looks perfect. Reality: this is illegal, you only can<br>
>> follow that cycleway north, otherwise you cycle on the wrong side of<br>
>> the road. So we have to correct the data. Let's say we put a<br>
>> oneway=yes on the eastern cycleway.<br>
>> * Second attempt: well obvious again, you simply take the N47 instead<br>
>> of that cycleway. Only slightly longer, a bit less attractive, but not<br>
>> too bad. Reality: this is illegal. There are cycleways, you have to<br>
>> follow those. So we have to correct the data. Somehow we have to make<br>
>> explicit that you are not supposed to cycle on the N47 but have to<br>
>> follow the parallel cycleways. So let's put some tag explaining that<br>
>> on the N47. I don't really care which one. It could be boldly<br>
>> bicycle=no or the proposed bicycle=use_sidepath or whatever. I'm just<br>
>> not supposed to cycle over the highway=primary.<br>
>> * Third attempt: let's see. When leaving Macharisdreef, I have only<br>
>> two options. Either I take the N47, but that is illegal, or I take the<br>
>> cycleway east of N47. Nothing else connects to Marcharisdreef. So my<br>
>> only option is to follow the eastern cycleway to the north. Hmm, I<br>
>> then can cross the N47 right before that terribly complicated junction<br>
>> and start following the western cycleway. Until I find a place to<br>
>> cross the N47 again. The first one that I find is right at the<br>
>> roundabout about 500m to the south. There, I can traverse to the<br>
>> eastern cycleway and follow that north to Baan nr. 90. OK, I have a<br>
>> solution. Not exactly short (about 1km instead of the 50m in my<br>
>> previous attempts), but at least it is legal. Reality: not entirely<br>
>> legal (at least at the roundabout you should go around it instead of<br>
>> traversing before the roundabout), but close enough for me. With the<br>
>> slightest bit of common sense I wouldn't follow that anyhow. What I<br>
>> would do is traverse N47, follow the western cycleway and traverse<br>
>> again when I am at Baan nr. 90. Why didn't the algorithm propose that?<br>
>> Simple: the road to the east of N47 are not connected to the western<br>
>> cycleway and vice verse. So we have to modify the data again. At every<br>
>> point where there is a sideroad from only one side we need to add a<br>
>> short cycleway to connect the cycleway on the other side with the<br>
>> junction.<br>
>><br>
>> Once those junctions are made, I will get the obvious, correct route.<br>
>><br>
>> Conclusion: lots of work and near impossible to maintain.<br>
>><br>
>> Now, let's see what happens if I tag the cycle paths on the<br>
>> highway=primary in stead of drawing them separately. It is in any case<br>
>> a lot less work. No need to draw the separate cycleways and no need to<br>
>> add all the technical tags on both highway=primary and<br>
>> highway=cycleway that I described previously to get correct results. I<br>
>> just add cycleway=lane or something similar to the highway=primary.<br>
>> What does the algorithm say? I will just say: "At the end of<br>
>> Macharisdreef turn left on N47. I know there are are cycle lanes so<br>
>> you should follow those instead of cycling in the middle of the road.<br>
>> And after 50m you turn left in Baan nr. 90.".<br>
>> Simple, clear, robust.<br>
>><br>
>> That is why I only will draw separate cycleways if there really is no<br>
>> other option. Even if it is not wrong to draw to the cycleway<br>
>> separately, it is just a lot of work, impossible to maintain and a<br>
>> huge source of errors waiting to happen.<br>
>><br>
>> Bonus question 1: what happens with routing for pedestrians in both<br>
>> situations?<br>
>> Bonus question 2: in how many ways is it possible to make mistakes<br>
>> when mapping cycling routes? Especially the case of a route that can<br>
>> be followed in both directions is enlightening.<br>
>> Bonus question 3: which situation has the least tags (=lowest database<br>
>> size) and the least junctions and ways (=greater efficiency for<br>
>> routing algorithms like Dijkstra)?<br>
>><br>
>> wouter<br>
>><br>
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Jo <<a href="mailto:winfixit@gmail.com">winfixit@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > We have more recent AGIV imagery now. All I see wrong is that the<br>
>> > cycleway<br>
>> > is connected to the underground waterway. But the main road is too.<br>
>> > Probably<br>
>> > to silence validator warnings in a totally inappropriate way...<br>
>> ><br>
>> > I still think it's correct to draw the cycleways separate cases like<br>
>> > this.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Marc, you opened a can of worms there :-) But it's good that the subject<br>
>> > of<br>
>> > using separate ways to represent lanes is brought up on the list.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Jo<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > 2014-05-13 8:15 GMT+02:00 Wouter Hamelinck <<a href="mailto:wouter.hamelinck@gmail.com">wouter.hamelinck@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
>> ><br>
>> >> Wow, based on the Bing images a simple T-crossing and a bypass is all<br>
>> >> there is in reality.<br>
>> >> Also, note the nice examples of about everything that can go wrong<br>
>> >> when drawing parallel cycleways along the N47.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> wouter<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> 2014-05-13 6:35 GMT+02:00 Jo <<a href="mailto:winfixit@gmail.com">winfixit@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
>> >> > Zeker wel, het klopt niet om een aparte weg te tekenen voor elk<br>
>> >> > rijvak.<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > Absolutely, using a separate way to represent traffic lanes is not<br>
>> >> > how<br>
>> >> > it's<br>
>> >> > supposed to be done.<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > Jo<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > 2014-05-13 5:48 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis <<a href="mailto:marc.gemis@gmail.com">marc.gemis@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> Hallo,<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> Ik vraag me af of het OK is het volgende kruispunt te vereenvoudigen<br>
>> >> >> via<br>
>> >> >> turn:lanes : <a href="http://osm.org/go/0Ejo5_fqb--?way=51738440" target="_blank">http://osm.org/go/0Ejo5_fqb--?way=51738440</a><br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> I wonder whether it's ok to simplify the following crossing with<br>
>> >> >> turn:lanes tagging: <a href="http://osm.org/go/0Ejo5_fqb--?way=51738440" target="_blank">http://osm.org/go/0Ejo5_fqb--?way=51738440</a><br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> met vriendelijke groeten<br>
>> >> >> regards<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> m<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________<br>
>> >> >> Talk-be mailing list<br>
>> >> >> <a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
>> >> >> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a><br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > _______________________________________________<br>
>> >> > Talk-be mailing list<br>
>> >> > <a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
>> >> > <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> --<br>
>> >> "Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei."<br>
>> >> - Thor Heyerdahl<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> "Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei."<br>
>> - Thor Heyerdahl<br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Talk-be mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Talk-be mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
"Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei."<br>
- Thor Heyerdahl<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-be mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>