[mkgmap-dev] Problem with turn restriction

Tue Feb 4 20:50:10 GMT 2014

no problem.

I also think your patch is also complaining about invalid restrictions with the wrong messages.
Attached my proposal.

Gerd

> Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 21:44:33 +0100
> From: wmgcnfg at web.de
> To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Problem with turn restriction
> 
> Arghhh....
> I started mkgmap from the wrong workspace. I should have been more 
> alarmed that I got exactly the same number of problems!
> 
> Ok, I will try again and hopefully the number of problems will be 
> reduced *very* much.
> 
> Sorry!!
> WanMil
> 
> > Hi WanMil,
> >
> > with your patch I see more messages for my Niedersachsen data,
> > but not a single one starts with "Late invalid".
> >
> > Maybe you are looking at an old result file?
> >
> > Gerd
> >
> >  > Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 21:21:31 +0100
> >  > From: wmgcnfg at web.de
> >  > To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> >  > Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Problem with turn restriction
> >  >
> >  > Hi Gerd,
> >  >
> >  > your fixes for 3) were already sorted out by my checks. So relations
> >  > without via coord in the bbox were not counted.
> >  >
> >  > I wonder why your fixes for 1) do not help. I have expected that it
> >  > removes some of the 851 problems...
> >  >
> >  > By the way:
> >  > 2) mmh, I don't mind adding that but I think it can be addressed with
> >  > very low priority. If there is a street where u-turns are not allowed
> >  > the street should be mapped with separate ways for each direction
> >  > (that's my opinion - don't know if that matches with the official
> >  > mapping guidelines).
> >  >
> >  > 4) Ok, they can be ignored. Would be great if we can detect them to
> >  > output different log messages for them.
> >  >
> >  > WanMil
> >  >
> >  > > Hi WanMil,
> >  > >
> >  > > that's strange. With r3000 I saw many problems for Niedersachen, with
> >  > > r3002 only 4, and those were the two examples.
> >  > >
> >  > > I am downloading latest Germany now.
> >  > >
> >  > > Gerd
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > WanMil wrote
> >  > >> Hi Gerd,
> >  > >>
> >  > >> I think your changes are good.
> >  > >> Anyhow for my special purpose I don't see any difference after
> > your fixes.
> >  > >> So I will explain what and how I am checking the restrictions (see
> >  > >> attached patch with the check code).
> >  > >>
> >  > >> All restrictions that are valid after loading but which cannot be
> >  > >> written to the map because there is a problem when the
> >  > >> RestrictionRelation.addRestriction(..) is called are logged with the
> >  > >> (not very useful...) text "Late invalid: "+URL of restriction.
> >  > >>
> >  > >> See relation_problems.txt with the results. There are 851 problems in
> >  > >> Germany using the tiles created with attached areas.list.
> >  > >>
> >  > >> I am not sure if really all logged restrictions are completely
> > valid but
> >  > >> all I checked should make its way into the mkgmap compiled map.
> >  > >>
> >  > >> I hope this helps you to find some other problematic places!
> >  > >>
> >  > >> WanMil
> >  > >>
> >  > >>> Hi WanMil,
> >  > >>>
> >  > >>> up to now I found these reasons for problems:
> >  > >>> 1) one error in the branch: via coords were replaced without updating
> >  > >>> the corrresponding restrictions and the hash map
> >  > >>> 2) "no_u_turn" restrictions were not added
> >  > >>> if from-way and to-way are equal. They are evaluated to be valid, but
> >  > >>> I don't know if they really make sense?
> >  > >>> 3) restrictions are added to the restrictions hash map even if
> > the via
> >  > >>> coord is
> >  > >>> not contained in the bounding box.
> >  > >>>
> >  > >>> 4) restrictions that have a from-way or to-way which
> >  > >>> is not added with a routable type or not at all,
> >  > >>> e.g. way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/225540783
> >  > >>> has no tags but is part of three restriction relations.
> >  > >>> Another example:
> >  > >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2880411
> >  > >>> refers to ways that are tagged lane=tertiary
> >  > >>> and the default style ignores them.
> >  > >>>
> >  > >>> In high-prec-coords branch r3003 I've fixed 1) to 3), please
> >  > >>> check again.
> >  > >>>
> >  > >>> Gerd
> >  > >>>
> >  > >>>
> >  > >>>
> >  > >>> > Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 13:01:40 -0800
> >  > >>> > From:
> >  > >
> >  > >> gpetermann_muenchen@
> >  > >
> >  > >>> > To:
> >  > >
> >  > >> mkgmap-dev at .org
> >  > >
> >  > >>> > Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Problem with turn restriction
> >  > >>> >
> >  > >>> > WanMil wrote
> >  > >>> > >> I want to make a small statistic why restriction relations
> > become
> >  > >>> > >> invalid. Maybe the problem is so seldom that it's not worthy...
> >  > >>> > >
> >  > >>> > > I have made a short stat with the high-prec branch:
> >  > >>> > > There are around 850 relations that are valid
> >  > >>> > > (RestrictionRelation.isValid() == true) after loading but
> > that are
> >  > >>> not
> >  > >>> > > valid when the StyledConverter calls
> >  > >>> > > RestrictionRelations.convertRelation(MapCollector ...).
> >  > >>> > > So it seems to me as if the problem is greater than expected.
> >  > >>> >
> >  > >>> > Yes, sounds too much. The only good case that I can think of
> >  > >>> > is that the relation is saved by splitter because one of the
> >  > >>> > related ways has at least one point within the boundary, but
> >  > >>> > another part of the relation is outside of the boundary.
> >  > >>> > If the via node is within the tile boundary we should be able
> >  > >>> > to create the restriction.
> >  > >>> >
> >  > >>> > Gerd
> >  > >>> >
> >  > >>> >
> >  > >>> >
> >  > >>> > --
> >  > >>> > View this message in context:
> >  > >>>
> > http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Problem-with-turn-restriction-tp5795049p5795167.html
> >  > >>> > Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at
> > Nabble.com.
> >  > >>> > _______________________________________________
> >  > >>> > mkgmap-dev mailing list
> >  > >>> >
> >  > >
> >  > >> mkgmap-dev at .org
> >  > >
> >  > >>> > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> >  > >>>
> >  > >>>
> >  > >>> _______________________________________________
> >  > >>> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> >  > >>>
> >  > >
> >  > >> mkgmap-dev at .org
> >  > >
> >  > >>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> >  > >>>
> >  > >>
> >  > >>
> >  > >> _______________________________________________
> >  > >> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> >  > >
> >  > >> mkgmap-dev at .org
> >  > >
> >  > >> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> >  > >>
> >  > >> relation_check.patch (1K)
> >  > >>
> > &lt;http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/attachment/5795291/0/relation_check.patch&gt;
> >  > >> areas.list (14K)
> >  > >> &lt;http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/attachment/5795291/1/areas.list&gt;
> >  > >> relation_problems.txt (71K)
> >  > >>
> > &lt;http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/attachment/5795291/2/relation_problems.txt&gt;
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > --
> >  > > View this message in context:
> > http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Problem-with-turn-restriction-tp5795049p5795294.html
> >  > > Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >  > > _______________________________________________
> >  > > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/attachments/20140204/e8a5d699/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: relation_check-v2.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 2059 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/attachments/20140204/e8a5d699/attachment-0001.obj>