From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Discussion moved to Talk:OSM_tags_for_routing

Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Routing and Garmin GPS

I am interested in how the routing data of OSM can be used to create open routing Garmin GPS maps. At this stage, the software to produce routable Garmin maps is proprietary, but one can run open data through it to produce open routeable maps. My interest is that long term, I'd like to see the NZ Open GPS Maps project using OSM for their data management and mapping. So I guess my question is - can the routing model support mapping of OSM routing information to the polish files that are used as input to producing Garmin routing map files?

Yes, converting osm data to Garmin routable map files is now possible. The current method uses a detour where the osm data is first converted to the Polish format which cGPSMapper can convert to routable maps. It might not be the best solution, but it works and that's what counts. --Lambertus 12:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • GroundTruth in a later version will (hopefully) be able to achieve this --Gary68 12:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Navigation Hardware using OSM data

Yes, I know, I can upload OSM data to Garmin devices and walk along the roads. But are there navigation devices that will tell your way like "turn left" "turn right" based on OSM data?

No devices but software to do so.

It's kind of hard to follow the discussion (please sign your comments), but yes, Garmin GPS receivers support routing with maps generated from OSM data. See for example mkgmap/routing. Robx 16:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

New usecase - Non graphic description of an uploaded track.

A blind friend collects GPS tracks and searches a software that can tell him the track in text. Is any existing OSM routing software able to do that already? --Lulu-Ann 12:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Highway types list

1. According to taginfo, there are no usage of highway=living_street_narrow and highway=residential_narrow, and only one highway=quarternary. I going to remove it if no one have a reason why it should be in the list.

2. There is no assumed speed information about types highway=unclassified and highway=road. Is it bug or feature? --Santacloud (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

the whole list is rather useless without realistic per-country estimates. RicoZ (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup Proposal

This page could be very helpful as an introduction into routing with OpenStreetMap data. However, it requires some cleanup in order to avoid that the most important parts (list to software projects/web applications) are not hidden by long paragraphs about what routing enginges could do. Therefore, I propose the following cleanup:

  • Remove links to unmaintained software
  • Order list of programmes by programming language, drop section for libraries. Many programmes (e.g. GraphHopper and OSRM) can be used as a library and promoted for that purpose as well. Some have demo applications for smartphones. The distinction between the worlds does is difficult if there is more than one world at all. :-)
  • Remove the section "Routing considerations". The purpose of that section is not clear. Someone who wants to write a routing engine from scrath will have his/her own opinion of an optimal route. It depends on an unlimited list of factors. The meaning of highway values differs a bit between countries and we don't have to duplicate that information here. The pagraph links to some "odd" tags which don't seem to be used siginificantly.

--Nakaner (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this page needs a lot of cleanup. I agree with the proposal above, though I'd suggest moving the libraries into a sortable table similar to the ones at Rendering, with columns for language, platform (for non-cross-platform libraries), and license. If possible, we should keep the lists of applications and libraries separate, even if that requires some duplication between the lists, because non-programmers shouldn't have to even think about libraries. This article is currently focused on routing per se, but all of navigation (including guidance) could be discussed. "Routing considerations" is also unnecessary if we expand the "Mappers" section to encompass more navigation-related tagging. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 17:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Cleanup yes, instead of removing, the default should be moving data I think. For example the section "Routing considerations" can be a seperate page and this page could link to it. Same for the section for libraries. - Emvee (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)