Apply stricter motor vehicle nothrough traffic rules in Finland #6254
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev-2.x #6254 +/- ##
=============================================
- Coverage 69.73% 69.71% -0.03%
- Complexity 17681 17695 +14
=============================================
Files 2007 2008 +1
Lines 75772 75831 +59
Branches 7754 7762 +8
=============================================
+ Hits 52843 52863 +20
- Misses 20216 20256 +40
+ Partials 2713 2712 -1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚨 Try these New Features:
|
|
Could you please give some documentation on the OSM guideline, especially why alleys, driveways, drive-throughs, etc., should not be used for through traffic? I don't see a problem driving through driveways / alleys / etc. |
|
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:service Car routing is supposed to find an appropriate route between 2 places. Taking a weird shortcut through a parking area or a drive-in restaurant line is not convenient. |
|
I think applying the through-traffic prohibition on However, There is nothing in the documentation says that these roads shouldn't be used for through traffic. The presence of these tags only represents the function of these roads in the road network, not for any access restrictions. I still doubt if you should really disallow through traffic on these ways. If using such ways can result in a time / fuel saving, it should be presented to the user. A lot of drivers cut through |
|
Right - I would not suggest to exclude them if OTP had fastest/shortest/most convenient option for car routing. Currently it does not and we have to find a good compromise. This change is based on a complaint of a client. As a reference, Google Maps does not suggest such shortcuts. |
|
Can we generalise our bike safety factor to cars as well? |
|
Just because some drivers cut through car parks and petrol stations, doesn't mean that we should encourage that. Besides, this PR only proposes changes for Finland. We kind of have something like safety value for cars: the edge-specific speed. |
|
I had a read of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice again. It says that I think it's only really relevant to the constant speed mapper because in a real one these service ways have a lower speed and would be discarded anyway. |
| @Test | ||
| public void constantSpeedCarRouting() { | ||
| OsmTagMapper osmTagMapper = new ConstantSpeedFinlandMapper(20f); | ||
|
|
||
| var slowWay = new OsmWithTags(); | ||
| slowWay.addTag("highway", "residential"); | ||
| assertEquals(20f, osmTagMapper.getCarSpeedForWay(slowWay, true)); | ||
|
|
||
| var fastWay = new OsmWithTags(); | ||
| fastWay.addTag("highway", "motorway"); | ||
| fastWay.addTag("maxspeed", "120 kmph"); | ||
| assertEquals(20f, osmTagMapper.getCarSpeedForWay(fastWay, true)); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this should be in a separate test file for the constant speed mapper.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree, moved.
Summary
According to OSM guide lines, ways tagged as service=parking_aisle,driveway,alley,emergency_access,drive-through are not intended for pass through traffic. It seems that at least in Finland, such ways often lack explicit access restriction tagging (e.g. access=private).
This PR extends the pass through traffic restrictions of Finland tag mapping for car routing to include such service ways. We may consider if the same logic should be applied in the default tag mapper class.
Two pass through methods are now renamed. Double negation in the names made those hard to understand.
Unit tests
A test for a service way added.
Documentation
Self-documenting code.