[Tagging] POI data and Addresses on areas - Was: addresses on buildings
f at zz.de
Fri Jan 10 23:03:57 UTC 2020
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 09:34:32AM -0500, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 04:22, Florian Lohoff <f at zz.de> wrote:
> > OTOH in the dense urban areas you have the problem of Address for road A
> > nearer to Road B. So you get navigated to the wrong spot on the road
> > network. This view is generated with the OSRM Car profile and mapping
> > all addr:* objects with the "nearest" function and comparing the highway
> > name and the addr:street. If both are "filled" and non equal -> fail.
> > https://osm.zz.de/dbview/?db=addresses-owl&layer=namemismatch#51.98848,8.49342,18z
> In the example of Cheruskerstraße 125a, how is it actually reached?
> Esri satellite imagery seems to suggest it's actually reached from Zum
> Alten Hammer. The tool flags this as a problem because of street name
> mismatch but it actually appears correct.
> In the case of Cheruskerstraße 107g it looks like by far the easiest
> way to solve it is for the router to take footways into account. Or I
> guess we could create a new tag for "motor vehicle stop location to
> get to a given address" to work around router shortcomings...?
How can a router take footways into account when your mode of transport
is by car? Can it take ALL footways in the routing graph? Only some?
> Same with your later example of bicycle routing not checking for
> barriers like rivers and removing ways with access=private. That seems
> a lot easier to fix with software than by reorganizing the database.
> But then I'm not a router developer.
The processing of finding a point on the routeable network is a spatial
"nearest". I know if no nav solution which does something more
sophisticated. I'd like to be proven wrong.
And access=private has the mapper say - "This highway is NOT for general
consumption" so it is the correct processing in excluding this way from
routing. And i have heard this argument a hundret times. If you
take access=private into routing you break a gazillion of other cases
where the mapper explicitly wanted to exclude this way from routing.
Florian Lohoff f at zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Tagging