From troels at arvin.dk  Mon Oct 29 15:17:43 2018
From: troels at arvin.dk (Troels Arvin)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:17:43 +0100
Subject: [Routing] Pedestrian tunnel
Message-ID: <d1dae336-f310-d8b8-9c8f-3478360f5a40@arvin.dk>

Hello,

I've added a pedestrian tunnel under a main road in Turkey:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/39.54963/26.61832
http://troels.arvin.dk/osm/evidence/turkey/ped_tun/osm-editor-ss.png

This is what it looks like in the real world:
http://troels.arvin.dk/osm/evidence/turkey/ped_tun/foto.jpg

However, GraphHopper doesn't seem to consider the tunnel.
Note how it takes the walking person on a long detour:
http://troels.arvin.dk/osm/evidence/turkey/ped_tun/osm-graphhopper-ss.png

Have I tagged it in a wrong way? Or does GraphHopper have a delay in data-
uptime which explains why it does not suggest using the tunnel when being
on foot? Or is this a GraphHopper bug which needs to be reported (where?)?

-- 
Regards,
Troels Arvin <troels at arvin.dk>
http://troels.arvin.dk/



From davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com  Mon Oct 29 15:57:06 2018
From: davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com (Dave F)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:57:06 +0000
Subject: [Routing] Pedestrian tunnel
In-Reply-To: <d1dae336-f310-d8b8-9c8f-3478360f5a40@arvin.dk>
References: <d1dae336-f310-d8b8-9c8f-3478360f5a40@arvin.dk>
Message-ID: <98ad4411-c81f-cf21-0138-2faa93ddc2e7@btinternet.com>



On 29/10/2018 15:17, Troels Arvin wrote:
> Or does GraphHopper have a delay in data-uptime which explains why it 
> does not suggest using the tunnel

This is most likely as your tagging appears fine.

One thing: As you can see on your iD PNG, your steps are far too close 
to the highway. Remember a way represents an infinitesimally narrow 
centreline & allowance should be made for its real world width.

Cheers
DaveF


From frederik at remote.org  Mon Oct 29 15:48:42 2018
From: frederik at remote.org (Frederik Ramm)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:48:42 +0100
Subject: [Routing]  Pedestrian tunnel
In-Reply-To: <d1dae336-f310-d8b8-9c8f-3478360f5a40@arvin.dk>
References: <d1dae336-f310-d8b8-9c8f-3478360f5a40@arvin.dk>
Message-ID: <024c4b71-583a-c9ae-1876-9d4de5414596@remote.org>

Hi,

On 10/29/18 16:17, Troels Arvin wrote:
> Or does GraphHopper have a delay in data-
> uptime which explains why it does not suggest using the tunnel when being
> on foot?

Building the world-wide routing graph is something that takes about half
a day or so, so I guess they will not update *every* day. Give it a week
and check back then. Your mapping seems to be correct (and footpaths
down in the next village are used by Graphhopper).

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"


From troels at arvin.dk  Mon Oct 29 18:20:22 2018
From: troels at arvin.dk (Troels Arvin)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 19:20:22 +0100
Subject: [Routing] Pedestrian tunnel
In-Reply-To: <d1dae336-f310-d8b8-9c8f-3478360f5a40@arvin.dk>
References: <d1dae336-f310-d8b8-9c8f-3478360f5a40@arvin.dk>
Message-ID: <43f2085f-358b-86dd-9e5f-840e5f003ac5@arvin.dk>

Hello,

Dave F wrote:
 > One thing: As you can see on your iD PNG, your steps are far too close
 > to the highway.

Yes, I was actually unsure of how to map this.

As the photo shows, the stairs lead onto the sidewalk:
http://troels.arvin.dk/osm/evidence/turkey/ped_tun/foto.jpg But if I were
to map that in detail, then I would have to draw a separate sidewalk on
the whole road; that's too big a task for the time being, and I'm no
longer in the area, so I cannot go verify stuff, if I become unsure of
something.

Does someone have a suggestion on how to handle the above?

-- 
Regards,
Troels Arvin


From jmapb at gmx.com  Mon Oct 29 23:26:40 2018
From: jmapb at gmx.com (Jmapb)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 19:26:40 -0400
Subject: [Routing] Pedestrian tunnel
In-Reply-To: <43f2085f-358b-86dd-9e5f-840e5f003ac5@arvin.dk>
References: <d1dae336-f310-d8b8-9c8f-3478360f5a40@arvin.dk>
 <43f2085f-358b-86dd-9e5f-840e5f003ac5@arvin.dk>
Message-ID: <019d5b75-7916-6e93-f228-3d3812a38deb@gmx.com>

On 10/29/2018 2:20 PM, Troels Arvin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Dave F wrote:
> > One thing: As you can see on your iD PNG, your steps are far too close
> > to the highway.
>
> Yes, I was actually unsure of how to map this.
>
> As the photo shows, the stairs lead onto the sidewalk:
> http://troels.arvin.dk/osm/evidence/turkey/ped_tun/foto.jpg But if I were
> to map that in detail, then I would have to draw a separate sidewalk on
> the whole road; that's too big a task for the time being, and I'm no
> longer in the area, so I cannot go verify stuff, if I become unsure of
> something.
>
> Does someone have a suggestion on how to handle the above?
>
As I see it, there are two choices:
-- Ignore the sidewalks and just connect the pedestrian steps directly 
to the road ways. Then the road functions as a route for cars and 
pedestrians. There's no need to draw the little angled sidewalks, 
because car routing won't follow highway=steps.
-- Map a separate way for the sidewalks on each side, down the center of 
the sidewalk. It doesn't have to be for the whole road; it could just be 
to the next intersection on each side. But this is kind of unsatisfying, 
so you might want to go ahead and do the whole road, even through it's a 
long one. Truth is, this road -- wide and busy enough that it requires a 
tunnel to safely cross -- is exactly the kind of road that benefits most 
from having the sidewalks mapped as separate ways, because it really 
matters for pedestrian routing which side of the road you're walking on.

J


From jmapb at gmx.com  Mon Oct 29 23:35:18 2018
From: jmapb at gmx.com (Jmapb)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 19:35:18 -0400
Subject: [Routing] Pedestrian tunnel
In-Reply-To: <019d5b75-7916-6e93-f228-3d3812a38deb@gmx.com>
References: <d1dae336-f310-d8b8-9c8f-3478360f5a40@arvin.dk>
 <43f2085f-358b-86dd-9e5f-840e5f003ac5@arvin.dk>
 <019d5b75-7916-6e93-f228-3d3812a38deb@gmx.com>
Message-ID: <ec287e6d-3b9e-c817-05df-d3c0c61f5d60@gmx.com>

On 10/29/2018 7:26 PM, Jmapb wrote:

> Truth is, this road -- wide and busy enough that it requires a tunnel 
> to safely cross -- is exactly the kind of road that benefits most from 
> having the sidewalks mapped as separate ways, because it really 
> matters for pedestrian routing which side of the road you're walking on.

Eh, I take it back -- because this is mapped as a dual carriageway, 
routing across the street won't happen except at valid intersections, so 
there's not *that* much advantage to having the sidewalks as a separate 
way. I'd just connect the steps directly to the road's way without any 
sidewalk. J