Стандард у означавању картографских објеката за карту Србије

@SunCobalt: I guess you have a point. Also, since we cant really encode speed limits on maps generated Garmin or TomTom there’s no point in insisting on them.

@Pedja: Manual entry then it is?

That is why I did not set default value for maxspeed in template. I thought if OSM already knows maxspeeds for roads in each country, it should apply that if maxspeed is not specified for specific road. Maxspeed should be set for a road only if it is an exception to default. That is how traffic signs work.

Thing is, I am not sure that OSM applies default maxspeed. Wiki that explains default maxspeeds is not quite clear on that.

Него, да ли је неко пробао овај пресет? Може ли то тако да функционише?
Поставио сам нову верзију пресета. Додао сам означавање вициклистичких трака у саобраћајсницама и бициклистичку стазу.

Максимална брзина је дефинисана, поред типа пута, и да ли је у насељеном месту или не. Наравно, увек једно можемо да прогласимо изузетком али због проблема са дефинисањем граница насељених места остаје само ручно дефинисање.

ОСМ је у суштини база тако да програми који је свој рад заснивају на тој бази би требало да воде рачуна о подразумеваним вредностима а не ОСМ.

Ако то значи да је негде у ОСМ дефинисано које су максималне брзине према типу пута онда је то ок.

Дакле, максимална брзина се не уписује за пут осим ако максимална брзина на датој деоници не одступа од подразумеване максималне брзине?

Пресет има опцију да се за сваки таг наведе да ли ће бити обрисан ако корсиник у дијалогу пресета није уписао никакву вредност. Штета што нема опције да га обрише и ако је корсиник уписао вредност која је већ подразумевана.

Убацио сам на вики преглед картографских објеката за стандардизацију означавања.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Serbia/MappingSerbia

Листа није комплетна, а очекујем да ћете и ви да је допуњавате. Молим вас, немојте самоиницијативно мењати листу, већ овде дајте предлоге шта и како треба урадити, па да уписујемо када усагласимо мишљења.

Почео сам и да уносим описа подешавања параметара за појединачне објекте. Ево пример како то изгледа за аутопут: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Serbia/MappingSerbia:autoput

Погледајте и јавите ако имате каквих идеја, да прилагодим пре него што наставимд ауносим и све остале објекте.

Ако има неки добровољац да ми се придружи да брже унесемо описе за објекте, утолико боље.

Nije loše što se tiče sadržaja, način na koji su organizovani linkovi možda nije baš naj srećniji, ali lako će mo da to reorganizujemo kada sakupimo sav potreban sadržaj i ubacimo to na http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sr:Map_Features stranicu.

p.s.
primetio sam da nigde ne postoji link ka toj stranici, osim u ovoj temi.

Нисам још ставио нигде линк док мало не напуним страницу и док не видим треба ли шта да се реорганизује.

Ова страна је нешто друго у односу на http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sr:Map_Features. Map Features описује све тагове који се могу користе у ОСМ мапи на уопштен и детаљан начин.

Листа коју ја правим је специјализована. Она садржи конкретне објекте који се могу наћи на карти Србије и описе како се ти објекти представљају коришћењем Map_Features. Њена намена је да некоме ко жели да уцрта конкретан објекат објасни како тај објекат треба да упише да би то било усклађено са осталим садржајем на мапи Србије а не да копа по Map_Features и покушава да провали како то да изведе.

На пример, за аутопут, у опису тага surface нису наведене све вредности које овај таг може да има по Map_Features већ само оне које има смисла користити за означавање аутопута. У опису неке друге врсте пута за исти тај таг приказан је другачији избор могућих вредности, који је прилагођен тој врсти путева.

У међувремену сам повезао све тагове у описима са Map_Features тако да се увек може отићи тамо и погледати детаљан опис тага.

Шта мислиш под тим да организација линкова није најсрећнија? Шта би требало поправити?

Aha, dobro sada vidim da je to nešto drugačije, na prvi pogleda sam pomislio da je samo lokalizovana verzija Map_Features stranice (zbog dosta sličnosti), u ovom slučaju onda nebih ništa menjao.

hi guys!

  1. take a look at this crossing. why do ways 33518933 and 45959727 are not perpendicular to jуриjа гагарина? i understand that it shows some kind of optimal traectory for a car to turn - but i’ve never seen such style of drawing for crossings before. is it mistakes, or some kind of a standart for drawing crossings in srbia?

  2. similar situation is here. moreover: because of such style of drawing, there is no direct routing from here to here, while it is obviously exist.

sorry for ugly english, but my srbian is worse :slight_smile:

@trump98
There are no problems there, all the possible combinations exist so the intersection is fully routed the way it should be, also accounting for the non-intersecting ways where you are actually not supposed to take a turn.

It’s only a more detailed style of mapping. The simpler way of perpendicular intersections works as well.

trump98, why hijacking this topic for something that is not this topic? You cannot start new one?

unconnected overlapping ways are not nice. I have fixed it how I think it should be. Most turn restrictions are implicit by oneway tags. Only the center intersection must have three turn restrictions (only_straight_on) i.e. that this center point can not be used to turn.
Would appreciate if you could take a look. Thanks

@Thomas
I really don’t see a problem with leaving ways non-intersecting if that faithfully represents reality. Adding all these non-turn restriction relations is just creating unnecessary extra work that somebody has to maintain.

I don’t know, this might looks simpler, but I would agree with Tomas, adding restriction relations is proper way to go, it’s cleaner and more faithful representation of situation on the ground. With overlapping roads it looks like this roads are not even connected which is not true, they are part of the same intersection and you could, even thou you shouldn’t, make illegal turn in reality. Current solution looks like lazy man solution.

Well, in reality you could turn from a physical point of view. It is not allowed and I would not try it during the rush hour but 4 o’clock in the morning it probably works. The legal restrictions should be applied to show the legal point of view and it is up to the consumers to decide wether they follow the traffic law or not. If the cosumer is an emergency service, they probably ignore the traffic restriction. Leaving it unconnected, it is you who make the decision for all data consumers…just my point of view. Anyway, this is just an extra, there are many other, more serious things that needs to be improved.

Sorry that I’am intude into yours talk, and maybe miss respect to Serbian local mapping traditions.

Let’s see http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=44.801397&lon=20.380961&zoom=18&layers=M
You say that it’s more accurate way of mapping. But what is mapped more accurate? What extra data are mapped?

Is area of hw crossing is more accurate? No, if you want more details area:highway do it better. Is some extra information about lanes - no. Is it helpfull for renders - no, is it helpfull for routing - no.

But if you map crosses for pedestrians (highway=crossing) - it,s extra job, and extra abstracts (2 crosses instead of one). If you adjust highway by tracks - more job. Car navigation start to say some strange things like “keep left” instead of clearly “turn left”. It’s hard to validate this data: is it big junction and someone miss remember set bridge and layer information?

So I just can’t understand why this four left turns mapped by separated way? No physical dividers (turning lanes for right turn is separated - and it’s cool that it mapped separate). I can’t find any way how to use this extra lines, how to apply it for better maps.

I have to agree, this intersection is a mess… Does it even make sense to leave the two lanes separated like that? Is there no way to actually denote how many lanes there are?

@Drazha
Those are physically separated ways, so yes, they have to stay like that (if you meant ways for opposite directions).

@dkiselev
I see your point, but IMHO this is still better than having perpendicular ways with intersecting nodes and with no information on turn restrictions.

If you guys feel this is too messy and want to commit to maintaining all the turn restriction relations, by all means, go for it.

One question though: how does a relation restricting the U-turn look like in that case?

@kmilos: Nehruova street is separated just before the intersection with Jurija Gagarina. If you look at the actual Bing map, there is no … “hedge lane” there, there are 5 lanes, with the middle lane being one way half of its lenght, and the other way the other half. So that does not actually represent the factual state.

I have found some interesting articles in the OSM documentation, and I believe that we do not need the… “criss-cross” roads drawn in there. If you do not mind, I will try to sort this out myself, and then we can pehaps test the routing with something like yoursnavigation.org. Or maybe one of you local guys can give it a go with a satnav or something.

In broader sense, I see that the way the roads are marked seem to be wrong. I would classify Jurija Gagarina as a trunk. It is not a motorway, since it has other streets crossing it. But it is a major, almost motorway class road. In the documentation this is called a “trunk”. I am not sure if you agree with this.

BR//Drazha

Not in my Bing (and my memory), there is a good 50m of ‘green island’ before Jurija Gagarina on Nehruova.

Again, how do you represent a U-turn restriction on the perpendicular intersection grid?

Also, just to show we have not ‘invented’ this mapping style, there are similar examples in e.g. Austria [1].

I’d personally go for primary and leave trunk for longer non-residential stretches (Beograd-Pančevo is a good example) [2], but this is probably a 50/50 decision.

P.S. Since you’re a moderator, please split of this discussion in a separate thread.

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway%3Djunction#Example
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_tag_usage