Ansicht von 15 Beiträgen - 1 bis 15 (von insgesamt 29)
  • Autor
    Beiträge
  • #15239
    JohnPercy
    JohnPercy
    Teilnehmer

    Looking at the mapping of http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/227136202 I see that it is in relationships with both bicycle and mtb routes. This means that it is not possible to distinguish bicycle and mtb routes reliably using OpenAndroMaps, as a test on network=“mtb“ fails because network is also equal to „lcn“ in this case,
    Or to put it another way, if in the Elevate theme I turn on the display of mtb routes and turn off cycle routes, then this section does not show up as an mtb route.
    If we want to show both bicycle routes and mtb routes, the network tag has to be transformed to something like mtbnetwork, analogous to hknetwork.
    LoMaps use a different method with separate ways for each network, using route =“bicycle“, „mtb“, „foot“ or „hiking“, which allows them to be distinguished and displayed (although Tobias does not display mtb routes on LoMaps).

    #15244
    Tobias
    Tobias
    Moderator

    Hi John,
    LoMaps probably have separate ways for every route, so every way is doubled for additional routes. With OAM route tags are inherited to the original way, so only one tag with the same key is possible.
    This is not only a problem with MTB vs. other cycling routes, but also if e.g. a local hiking route can’t be displayed because of a national on the same way. But it also reduces size and makes hierarchical display of routes possible.
    This was also discussed in the German forum here:
    https://www.openandromaps.org/oam-forums/topic/wanderwegsymbole-auf-den-neuen-karten-alle-wanderwege-darstellen
    For not displaying MTB Routes in LoMaps: Elevate is made for OAM only, if it works with other maps (partly) it is coincidence.
    Best regards,
    Tobias

    Developer of Elevate mapstyle

    #15246
    ChristianK
    ChristianK
    Keymaster

    Well,

    It would be possible to tag the mtb_routes different – even with the existing sheme.
    I could add (eg) a mtbnetwork=mtb (or so) so mtb routes would be a own sheme.
    .. while preserving network= and hknetwork=

    For me this would make sense cause Elevate have a seperate mtb_layer.

    @tobias ?

    Best regards
    Christian

    #15249
    JohnPercy
    JohnPercy
    Teilnehmer

    It makes a lot of sense to me. ?

    #15251
    Tobias
    Tobias
    Moderator

    For me too. Maybe you could also test separate hiking routes as discussed in the other thread?
    If it’s possible it would make sense to make the those changes all at once.

    Developer of Elevate mapstyle

    #15253
    ChristianK
    ChristianK
    Keymaster

    Hi @tobias,

    The change for the mtb_routes is done in a few hours cause this is already a seperate task.
    For the cycle routes I have to rewrite the whole resolving of the routes – this is really cumbersome.

    However –
    It would be possible to add all informations icn/ncn/… aso to the ways without producing seperate ways.
    This could be done by changing the system of the tags.
    Just for discussion:
    So far we have one tag (network/hknetwork) and multiple values = icn/ncn/.. iwn/nwn/..
    What if..
    we code all in one tag
    network_icn = something
    network_nwn = something
    network_mtb = something
    This way we could add all information without producing multiple copys of the underlaying way ???

    Are there any drawbacks or for this solution??

    Best regards
    Christian

    #15255
    Tobias
    Tobias
    Moderator

    Hi Christian,

    that’s the solution we discussed in this thread, at least there you wanted to keep the priority of cycling routes and only test this for hiking.

    With a scheme as you described above, it would be possible to show the complete routes (without route priorities) even if one has a lower priority, but the ref tag would still be crowded. And if there are two routes in the same category, you still can’t differentiate which to display.
    One could also have the possibility to show only one kind of route via overlay switcher, but this only makes sense without route priorities. And showing all routes would look more confusing.

    Best regards,
    Tobias

    Developer of Elevate mapstyle

    #15288
    ChristianK
    ChristianK
    Keymaster

    Of couse, you are right!
    And, its a real performance killer for the scripts used for resolving the relations.

    So, I will add mtbnetwork=mtb in addition to network=mtb and thats it.
    .. and everyone should be aware that there is a Problem with the ref-Tag.
    Maybe I will add seperate ways for MTB later.

    As for the hiking routes: I will give it a try later this spring.

    EDIT: Seperate MTB_routes only make sense when creatign copy of the ways as we dicussed earlier while leaving the network=mtb tag untouched.
    If I start seperating ways for relations – mtb first, which tags do we need to copy:
    – mtb_scale
    – mtb_scale_uphill
    – ref (from relation)
    – name (from relation)
    .. and delete all other tags (highway,…)?

    The tags in the original ways will stay as they are!!
    – without network tag
    – with the original ref/name

    Deleting tags from the original OSM-Ways is possible but a performance nightmare cause I have to tagtransform the whole OSM-File again after resolving relations. For Maps like Alps/Germany this take ages.

    Best regards
    Christian

    #15299
    JohnPercy
    JohnPercy
    Teilnehmer

    So, I will add mtbnetwork=mtb in addition to network=mtb and thats it.

    I agree that it is best to keep this simple. But won’t adding mtbnetwork=mtb in addition to network=mtb still leave indeterminate values for the network tag where both a cycle network and an mtb network run along the same way?
    Or, to put it another way, if I turn off the mtb-routes layer, I may or may not turn off parts of cycle routes, according to which value for network is preserved.

    Also, copying mtb networks into separate ways has the disadvantage of
    (a) overlapping routes are still difficult to map satisfactorily
    (i) not easy to separate them visually
    (ii) if partly transparent overlays are used, for example, multiple routes become opaque or coloured in undesired manners
    (b) it is not possible to adjust the rendering according to the nature of the highway the route is on.
    These are difficulties I have encountered with routes on the Locus maps.

    #15301
    ChristianK
    ChristianK
    Keymaster

    So I will start with the additional tag.

    network_mtb=mtb

    However, I could start with seperate ways for MTB Routes too – scripts are running fine,
    ID’s are reserved, aso…
    IMO that’s the better solution and the only one for hiking Routes.
    Whatever you and @tobias prefer.

    And we shoud think about the tags that have to be copied to the seperate Route_Ways for mtb/hiking, aso..

    Best regards
    Christian

    #15308
    JohnPercy
    JohnPercy
    Teilnehmer

    IMHO if you are going to distinguish cycle and MTB trails by additional tags, you need both mtb_network=mtb and cycle_network=lcn or whatever. Otherwise you still can’t do a reliable test for a cycle network because the value of network could be mtb or *cn as at present.

    #15312
    JohnPercy
    JohnPercy
    Teilnehmer

    Thinking about it some more, I’m not sure that I am clear about what Christian is proposing.
    I think the intention where there are multiple relations is to have for example:

    mtb_network=mtb ; identifying mtb networks
    network=mtb|icn|ncn|rcn|lcn|ucn ; for backwards compatibility
    highway=*

    but it might be (though I would not call that additional)

    mtb_network=mtb
    network=icn|ncn|rcn|lcn|ucn ; distinguishing mtb and cycle networks
    highway=*

    which I think would work.
    An alternative, which I suggested above is:

    mtb_network=mtb
    cycle_network=icn|ncn|rcn|lcn|ucn ; distinguishing mtb and cycle networks
    network=mtb|icn|ncn|rcn|lcn|ucn ; kept for backwards compatibility
    highway=*

    #15315
    Tobias
    Tobias
    Moderator

    Probably copying the ways would increase map size a lot, too. And I couldn’t have a something like network_mtb=~ if want to render cycle routes different if there’s a mtb route on it.
    So both solutions have their plusses and minues.
    I can live with all suggestions in John’s last post. But I think it would be wise to create a test map first.

    Developer of Elevate mapstyle

    #15322
    ChristianK
    ChristianK
    Keymaster

    mtb_network=mtb ; identifying mtb networks
    network=mtb|icn|ncn|rcn|lcn|ucn ; for backwards compatibility

    Lets try with this solution.
    W/O seperate Ways !!
    So all Tags of the relations are inherited to the underlaying way – same as it was so far.
    PLUS network_mtb=lay_mtb

    I created a test map (GB) but ran into the common value bug ;-)
    So tag for identifying mtb_routes out of the network=mtb|icn|ncn|rcn|lcn|ucn scheme is now
    network_mtb=lay_mtb

    Testmap should be ready tomorrow morning.

    One additional improvement i’v implemeted: If there is no „ref“ tagged or if it’s not possible to build one out of capital letters of the relation „name“ the ref of the underlaying way (hopefully) stays untouched.

    Best regards
    Christian

    #15329
    JohnPercy
    JohnPercy
    Teilnehmer

    How about creating network_ref instead. At present is not possible to know whether the ref applies to the network or the underlying highway and consequently not possible to know how to render it, assuming different types of highway have their refs rendered differently. As a consequence I don’t display the ref of highways or networks when the network runs along a main road.

Ansicht von 15 Beiträgen - 1 bis 15 (von insgesamt 29)

Du musst angemeldet sein, um auf dieses Thema antworten zu können.