[mkgmap-dev] overlapping highways and route restrictions

Wed Apr 4 11:12:37 BST 2018

Hi Gerd, 
I would ignore them and write a warning/info.
Of course mkgmap could try to handle it, but I don't think it's worth. Better fix it in the data,which anyway needs to be done. 

Henning

On 4 Apr 2018, 17:11, at 17:11, Gerd Petermann <gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hi Felix,
>
>well, you started to mention route relations:
>"The case of overlapping ways being part of different route relations
>on the other hand I've seen quite often - in that case I think it's
>best to just add all route relations to one way, and remove the other
>one."
>My understanding is that the code in mkgmap doesn't have to care about
>route relations (e.g. type=route, route=bicycle), this is done in the
>style. With your style those might cause more trouble because you add
>more routable lines for the members but the current overlap remover
>will only remove segments with more or less identical attributes.
>What you suggest requires a completely different approach, right?
>
>Gerd
>
>________________________________________
>Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von
>Felix Hartmann <extremecarver at gmail.com>
>Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. April 2018 10:58:43
>An: Development list for mkgmap
>Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] overlapping highways and route restrictions
>
>yes I know - but even though both ways you linked have different turn
>restriction ID - the content of the turn restriction is identical (only
>straight on).
>
>On 4 April 2018 at 10:54, Gerd Petermann
><gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com<mailto:gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com>>
>wrote:
>Hi Felix,
>
>yes, 1) would handle the case in my example.
>Just to make sure: I meant turn restrictions, not route relations.
>
>Gerd
>
>________________________________________
>Von: mkgmap-dev
><mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk<mailto:mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk>>
>im Auftrag von Felix Hartmann
><extremecarver at gmail.com<mailto:extremecarver at gmail.com>>
>Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. April 2018 10:48:20
>An: Development list for mkgmap
>Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] overlapping highways and route restrictions
>
>For my maps 1) is enough - and warning not even needed. I think it's
>hard to find out what the outcome should be.
>The case of overlapping ways being part of different route relations on
>the other hand I've seen quite often - in that case I think it's best
>to just add all route relations to one way, and remove the other one.
>
>The example you found here - I think is quite possible to solve - both
>restriction relations are identical - so one way including the
>restriction relation can be removed, the route relations copied over.
>If the restriction is having different rules - then however I don't
>think we can solve it correctly (well an exception is if we have
>overlapping ways in OSM which are oneway and opposite to each other -
>this is a rare case where overlapping ways are not to be removed I
>guess).
>
>
>
>On 4 April 2018 at 10:39, Gerd Petermann
><GPetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com<mailto:GPetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com><mailto:GPetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com<mailto:GPetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com>>>
>wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>please help, I just try to make up my mind what mkgmap should do when
>it finds overlapping road segments and
>one (or both) of the overlaps is a part of a (valid) restriction
>relation.  This doesn't happen very often, but it is possible.
>
>The attached example contains these two overlapping ways, and both are
>members of (different) restriction relations:
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48218016
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48218008
>
>(I did not try what the trunk version produces for this mess)
>
>I see different possibilities:
>1) ignore route restrictions when removing overlaps, remove those which
>are invalid after overlapping segments were removed and log a warning
>2) ignore overlaps when the ways are members of restriction relations
>3) complex: remove overlaps but try to "repair" the restriction
>
>I am currently trying to implement 3) but it looks too complicated for
>such a rare case and in the end we have a clear case of wrong input
>data here.
>What do you think?
>
>Gerd
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>mkgmap-dev mailing list
>mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk<mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk><mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk<mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk>>
>http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>
>
>
>--
>Felix Hartman - Openmtbmap.org & VeloMap.org
>Schusterbergweg 32/8
>6020 Innsbruck
>Austria - Österreich
>_______________________________________________
>mkgmap-dev mailing list
>mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk<mailto:mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk>
>http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>
>
>
>--
>Felix Hartman - Openmtbmap.org & VeloMap.org
>Schusterbergweg 32/8
>6020 Innsbruck
>Austria - Österreich
>_______________________________________________
>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/20180404/e093a5d4/attachment.html>