<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue-Light, Helvetica Neue Light, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_4251"><span></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_4236"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_4974"> This issue reminds me of something I saw a lot of recently on OSM</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_4657" dir="ltr">in Fort Collins, Colorado. I get the impression that the mapper who</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_4653" dir="ltr">did this editing did it as a way to avoid the problem(s) mentioned</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_4658" dir="ltr">regarding routing. When I first saw this "peculiar" way of mapping</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_4652" dir="ltr">traffic signals, I didn't speak up. I'm glad this finally got me to do so.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_4659" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_4660" dir="ltr">Instead of placing the traffic_signals key at the intersection nodes of</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_4663" dir="ltr">a dual carriageway (divided highway) intersection with signals, this</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_4975" dir="ltr">mapper created "redundant" nodes on the ways (one-ways) prior to</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_4976" dir="ltr">the intersections (and prior to pedestrian crossings, of course) at</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_4977" dir="ltr">the point where vehicles (by law) must stop for a red signal.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_4978" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_4981">Here is just one example of many in Fort Collins:</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_5136"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_5145"><a id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_5146" href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/40.55255/-105.07708">http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/40.55255/-105.07708</a></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">David</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_4330" style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Light, Helvetica Neue Light, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_4329" style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_4328" dir="ltr"><hr id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_4662" size="1"><font id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_4345" face="Arial" size="2"><b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> "talk-us-request@openstreetmap.org" <talk-us-request@openstreetmap.org><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> talk-us@openstreetmap.org <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Monday, July 27, 2015 11:10 AM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Talk-us Digest, Vol 92, Issue 19<br> </font> </div> <div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1438046528941_4331" class="y_msg_container"><br>Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to<br> <a ymailto="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br><br>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br> <a ymailto="mailto:talk-us-request@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-us-request@openstreetmap.org">talk-us-request@openstreetmap.org</a><br><br>You can reach the person managing the list at<br> <a ymailto="mailto:talk-us-owner@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-us-owner@openstreetmap.org">talk-us-owner@openstreetmap.org</a><br><br>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..."<br><br><br>Today's Topics:<br><br> 1. Am I mapping this wrong, or should the router be fixed for<br> this? (James Mast)<br> 2. Re: Am I mapping this wrong, or should the router be fixed<br> for this? (Tod Fitch)<br> 3. Re: Am I mapping this wrong, or should the router be fixed<br> for this? (Mike Thompson)<br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Message: 1<br>Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:58:04 -0400<br>From: James Mast <<a ymailto="mailto:rickmastfan67@hotmail.com" href="mailto:rickmastfan67@hotmail.com">rickmastfan67@hotmail.com</a>><br>To: "<a ymailto="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a>" <<a ymailto="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a>>,<br> "<a ymailto="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>" <<a ymailto="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>Subject: [Talk-us] Am I mapping this wrong, or should the router be<br> fixed for this?<br>Message-ID: <<a ymailto="mailto:SNT146-W850F25CC66803198F1A1A6BF8E0@phx.gbl" href="mailto:SNT146-W850F25CC66803198F1A1A6BF8E0@phx.gbl">SNT146-W850F25CC66803198F1A1A6BF8E0@phx.gbl</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br><br>I've been normally mapping slip lanes as '_link' highways at intersections since the beginning. However, as most fellow US mappers know, they almost never have 'speed limits' posted for them, and that seems to help cause problems in some routing programs when they give those slip lanes a speed limit higher than the main highway.<br><br>Anyways, I've been using OSMAnd recently for occasional offline routing on my tablet and have come across weird routing (I'd like to call them 'bugs') at some intersections that have 3+ traffic lights nodes at them because of the roads being divided. Here, OSMAnd routes me onto a slip lane, makes a U-Turn on the side road, and then continues the across the main road to accomplish what a simple 'left turn' could have done [1], all to avoid '1' traffic light node. So, I go report the 'bug' on the OSMAnd Google group [2], and then somebody forwards it to the GitHub site [3].<br><br>In the response I get back on GitHub, one of the maintainers of OSMAnd says it's a 'map data' issue and closes it. Claims that in the 'maneuver', since it avoids an extra traffic light node, it's the shortest route, even though it does that funky U-Turn. Say what?! I mean, honestly, if both MapQuest Open & OSMR can do that left turn 'normally' without needing to make a funky U-Turn, something has to be wrong in OSMAnd, right?? Sure, there isn't a 'NO U-Turn' sign posted for this maneuver, but still, the routing engine shouldn't be suggesting it since there isn't a 'NO Left Turn' relation there preventing the left turn from McKnight SB to Siebert EB.<br><br>So, that leads me to my question. Does anybody think I've tagged the intersection incorrectly? This is how I've been tagging intersections like this from since the start, and I know most other US mappers have been doing the same. Or should I start adding 'false' U-Turn restrictions to prevent the routing bugs and then be called out as 'tagging for the router', or even maybe start putting traffic light nodes at the stop lines for intersections that have both roads divided (and just leave simple one-node intersections as-is)?<br><br>I'm very curious to see what others have to say about this to see how I'll move forward when I map in the future. Also, don't hesitate to respond at the Google Group post or the GitHub one too as I get the e-mail notifications from them as well.<br><br>-James<br><br><br><br>[1] - (MapQuest routing, OSMAnd suggestion in [2] link) - <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapquest_car&route=40.53204%2C-80.01073%3B40.53002%2C-80.00614" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapquest_car&route=40.53204%2C-80.01073%3B40.53002%2C-80.00614 </a><br>[2] - <a href="https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/osmand/XJ-HVOHhKEM" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/osmand/XJ-HVOHhKEM </a><br>[3] - <a href="https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/issues/1501" target="_blank">https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/issues/1501 </a><br> <br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150727/8a715b2f/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150727/8a715b2f/attachment-0001.html</a>><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 2<br>Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:29:08 -0700<br>From: Tod Fitch <<a ymailto="mailto:tod@fitchdesign.com" href="mailto:tod@fitchdesign.com">tod@fitchdesign.com</a>><br>To: James Mast <<a ymailto="mailto:rickmastfan67@hotmail.com" href="mailto:rickmastfan67@hotmail.com">rickmastfan67@hotmail.com</a>><br>Cc: "<a ymailto="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a>" <<a ymailto="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a>>,<br> "<a ymailto="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>" <<a ymailto="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Am I mapping this wrong, or should the router<br> be fixed for this?<br>Message-ID: <<a ymailto="mailto:9285B5FD-D030-4B22-83D7-19AA8DB17972@fitchdesign.com" href="mailto:9285B5FD-D030-4B22-83D7-19AA8DB17972@fitchdesign.com">9285B5FD-D030-4B22-83D7-19AA8DB17972@fitchdesign.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"<br><br><br>> On Jul 27, 2015, at 8:58 AM, James Mast <<a ymailto="mailto:rickmastfan67@hotmail.com" href="mailto:rickmastfan67@hotmail.com">rickmastfan67@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> <br>> I've been normally mapping slip lanes as '_link' highways at intersections since the beginning. However, as most fellow US mappers know, they almost never have 'speed limits' posted for them, and that seems to help cause problems in some routing programs when they give those slip lanes a speed limit higher than the main highway.<br>> <br>> Anyways, I've been using OSMAnd recently for occasional offline routing on my tablet and have come across weird routing (I'd like to call them 'bugs') at some intersections that have 3+ traffic lights nodes at them because of the roads being divided. Here, OSMAnd routes me onto a slip lane, makes a U-Turn on the side road, and then continues the across the main road to accomplish what a simple 'left turn' could have done [1], all to avoid '1' traffic light node. So, I go report the 'bug' on the OSMAnd Google group [2], and then somebody forwards it to the GitHub site [3].<br>> <br>> In the response I get back on GitHub, one of the maintainers of OSMAnd says it's a 'map data' issue and closes it. Claims that in the 'maneuver', since it avoids an extra traffic light node, it's the shortest route, even though it does that funky U-Turn. Say what?! I mean, honestly, if both MapQuest Open & OSMR can do that left turn 'normally' without needing to make a funky U-Turn, something has to be wrong in OSMAnd, right?? Sure, there isn't a 'NO U-Turn' sign posted for this maneuver, but still, the routing engine shouldn't be suggesting it since there isn't a 'NO Left Turn' relation there preventing the left turn from McKnight SB to Siebert EB.<br>> <br>> So, that leads me to my question. Does anybody think I've tagged the intersection incorrectly? This is how I've been tagging intersections like this from since the start, and I know most other US mappers have been doing the same. Or should I start adding 'false' U-Turn restrictions to prevent the routing bugs and then be called out as 'tagging for the router', or even maybe start putting traffic light nodes at the stop lines for intersections that have both roads divided (and just leave simple one-node intersections as-is)?<br>> <br>> I'm very curious to see what others have to say about this to see how I'll move forward when I map in the future. Also, don't hesitate to respond at the Google Group post or the GitHub one too as I get the e-mail notifications from them as well.<br>> <br>> -James<br><br>I use OSMand for a couple of reasons, but I am really beginning to think that the developers are confused with their routing logic and assumptions. I’ve largely fixed the routing via _link ways by changing routing.xml for my personal use. My changes delete all their odd penalty logic when changing from one class of highway to another and simply set a reasonable default assumed speed for ways without maxspeed tagging. Basically, I set the maxspeed assumptions to be that for my state and then set the _link speeds to 1/2 that of the associated highway class. That fix has been mentioned by several posters on the OSMand discussion area and has been routinely ignored over several OSMand releases.<br><br>So my opinion is that you are mapping correctly (as evidenced by other routing engines giving reasonable results) and that the OSMand team is getting confused about how to actually fix the routing issues that are routinely being posted on their Google Group area.<br><br>Cheers,<br>Tod<br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150727/f7211569/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150727/f7211569/attachment-0001.html</a>><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 3<br>Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:10:40 -0600<br>From: Mike Thompson <<a ymailto="mailto:miketho16@gmail.com" href="mailto:miketho16@gmail.com">miketho16@gmail.com</a>><br>To: James Mast <<a ymailto="mailto:rickmastfan67@hotmail.com" href="mailto:rickmastfan67@hotmail.com">rickmastfan67@hotmail.com</a>><br>Cc: "<a ymailto="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a>" <<a ymailto="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a>>,<br> "<a ymailto="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>" <<a ymailto="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Am I mapping this wrong, or should the router<br> be fixed for this?<br>Message-ID:<br> <CALJoUku+EzwSchK=xS3t3uLRUBsgJ3q2OWvyCd9N+BB0+<a ymailto="mailto:kJCwA@mail.gmail.com" href="mailto:kJCwA@mail.gmail.com">kJCwA@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br><br>In reality there is only one set of stop lights there, correct? In other<br>words, if one were headed south on McKnight Road turning east on Seibert,<br>one would not have to stop (assuming red lights) three different times.<br><br>1) A routing engine should have some heuristics to interpret the three (in<br>this case) nodes tagged "highway=traffic_signals" as one.<br><br>2) There should be some cost in a routing engine for making a u-turn so as<br>to discourage such routes even if there was an extra set of signals. Making<br>a u-turn does take time (one can not go from the posted speed limit in one<br>direction to the posted speed limit in the other direction instantly). The<br>presence of other traffic in the opposing directly would add further to the<br>time needed to make a u-turn as one would have to wait for an opening.<br><br>Mike<br><br>On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM, James Mast <<a ymailto="mailto:rickmastfan67@hotmail.com" href="mailto:rickmastfan67@hotmail.com">rickmastfan67@hotmail.com</a>><br>wrote:<br><br>> I've been normally mapping slip lanes as '_link' highways at intersections<br>> since the beginning. However, as most fellow US mappers know, they almost<br>> never have 'speed limits' posted for them, and that seems to help cause<br>> problems in some routing programs when they give those slip lanes a speed<br>> limit higher than the main highway.<br>><br>> Anyways, I've been using OSMAnd recently for occasional offline routing on<br>> my tablet and have come across weird routing (I'd like to call them 'bugs')<br>> at some intersections that have 3+ traffic lights nodes at them because of<br>> the roads being divided. Here, OSMAnd routes me onto a slip lane, makes a<br>> U-Turn on the side road, and then continues the across the main road to<br>> accomplish what a simple 'left turn' could have done [1], all to avoid '1'<br>> traffic light node. So, I go report the 'bug' on the OSMAnd Google group<br>> [2], and then somebody forwards it to the GitHub site [3].<br>><br>> In the response I get back on GitHub, one of the maintainers of OSMAnd<br>> says it's a 'map data' issue and closes it. Claims that in the 'maneuver',<br>> since it avoids an extra traffic light node, it's the shortest route, even<br>> though it does that funky U-Turn. Say what?! I mean, honestly, if both<br>> MapQuest Open & OSMR can do that left turn 'normally' without needing to<br>> make a funky U-Turn, something has to be wrong in OSMAnd, right?? Sure,<br>> there isn't a 'NO U-Turn' sign posted for this maneuver, but still, the<br>> routing engine shouldn't be suggesting it since there isn't a 'NO Left<br>> Turn' relation there preventing the left turn from McKnight SB to Siebert<br>> EB.<br>><br>> So, that leads me to my question. Does anybody think I've tagged the<br>> intersection incorrectly? This is how I've been tagging intersections like<br>> this from since the start, and I know most other US mappers have been doing<br>> the same. Or should I start adding 'false' U-Turn restrictions to prevent<br>> the routing bugs and then be called out as 'tagging for the router', or<br>> even maybe start putting traffic light nodes at the stop lines for<br>> intersections that have both roads divided (and just leave simple one-node<br>> intersections as-is)?<br>><br>> I'm very curious to see what others have to say about this to see how I'll<br>> move forward when I map in the future. Also, don't hesitate to respond at<br>> the Google Group post or the GitHub one too as I get the e-mail<br>> notifications from them as well.<br>><br>> -James<br>><br>><br>><br>> [1] - (MapQuest routing, OSMAnd suggestion in [2] link) -<br>> <<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapquest_car&route=40.53204%2C-80.01073%3B40.53002%2C-80.00614" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapquest_car&route=40.53204%2C-80.01073%3B40.53002%2C-80.00614</a>><br>> <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapquest_car&route=40.53204%2C-80.01073%3B40.53002%2C-80.00614" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapquest_car&route=40.53204%2C-80.01073%3B40.53002%2C-80.00614</a><br>> [2] - <a href="https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/osmand/XJ-HVOHhKEM" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/osmand/XJ-HVOHhKEM</a><br>> [3] - <a href="https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/issues/1501" target="_blank">https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/issues/1501</a><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Talk-us mailing list<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>><br>><br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150727/a04958ec/attachment.html" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150727/a04958ec/attachment.html</a>><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Subject: Digest Footer<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Talk-us mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>End of Talk-us Digest, Vol 92, Issue 19<br>***************************************<br><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></body></html>