--- Log opened Wed Mar 13 00:00:14 2013 04:02 -!- noradtux [~noradtux@d211231.adsl.hansenet.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 04:07 -!- noradtux [~noradtux@g224063068.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #navit 08:00 -!- Tauso [~Thunderbi@line1.magix.net] has joined #navit 08:12 -!- Robotaxi [3ef5dbf5@gateway/web/freenode/ip.62.245.219.245] has joined #navit 08:14 #navit: < Navit> martin-s * r5413 /trunk/navit/navit/vehicle/demo/vehicle_demo.c: Add:vehicle_demo:Emit synthesized nmea data http://navit.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/navit?view=revision&revision=5413 08:21 -!- drlizau [~liz@billiau.net] has joined #navit 09:31 -!- Brinky_ [brinky@faui2k3.org] has joined #navit 09:36 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: Brinky, Tauso 09:36 -!- Brinky_ is now known as Brinky 09:39 -!- Netsplit over, joins: Tauso 10:26 -!- tonellobello [53e04526@gateway/web/freenode/ip.83.224.69.38] has joined #navit 10:27 #navit: < tonellobello> hello everybody 10:27 #navit: < tonellobello> I wanted to ask a question about navit routing strategy 10:27 #navit: < tonellobello> sorry if it is a common question 10:27 #navit: < tonellobello> is there any mechanism into navit to prevent u turns? 10:28 #navit: < tonellobello> I mean, if I get out of the route navit gave me, is there a way to recalc the route instead of u turning to get back in the old one? 10:34 #navit: < tonellobello> I checked on track and found this open ticket: http://trac.navit-project.org/ticket/77 Looks like it is been unattended since 2 years. Any plan in the community to add this feature? 10:35 #navit: < tonellobello> I think it is quite critical for a serious navigation system. I am an IT person and could start an investigation in the code to see what could be done 10:36 #navit: < tonellobello> I have no previous experience on navit codebase tough 11:13 #navit: < ventYl> you mean u turn on traffic lights? 11:21 -!- drlizau [~liz@billiau.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 11:22 -!- geektor [5706d708@gateway/web/freenode/ip.87.6.215.8] has joined #navit 11:22 -!- Tauso [~Thunderbi@line1.magix.net] has quit [Quit: Tauso] 11:24 -!- Tauso [~Thunderbi@line1.magix.net] has joined #navit 11:29 #navit: < tonellobello> no, I mean this: imagine I am following a route and suddenly I take the wrong direction from the one the route suggests. Actually, navit would tell you to make a u turn to get back to the route we were taking. 11:29 #navit: < tonellobello> this is usually wrong 11:29 #navit: < tonellobello> navit should recalculate the route so a u turn is avoided 11:30 #navit: < tonellobello> or provide an option to do so 11:30 #navit: < ventYl> this is usually correct, but navit probably doesn't count with car movement direction when calculating route 11:30 #navit: < ventYl> unless you are on road with separated lanes for both directions which is marked as one-way road 11:32 #navit: < tonellobello> you right, so we should have our current direction stored somewhere so we can now which way we were going, even when we stop 11:32 #navit: < tonellobello> once we know that, we should avoid routes which makes our direction go 180° 11:33 #navit: < tonellobello> if so happens, the route should be recalculated 11:33 #navit: < ventYl> even if doing u turn will spare you 40 kilometers? 11:34 #navit: < tonellobello> well, it should be introduced as an option 11:34 #navit: < tonellobello> but yes 11:34 #navit: < tonellobello> because sometimes u turning is simply not an option 11:34 #navit: < tonellobello> and is often dangerous 11:36 #navit: < ventYl> avoiding doing something just because _sometimes_ it's not an option is stupid :) 11:36 #navit: < ventYl> most of time you can do like u turn. if not right here then maybe few hundred meters down the road 11:36 #navit: < Tauso> But the u-turn messanges can be really annoying 11:37 #navit: < tonellobello> yeah, but I think it is OFTEN dangerous :-) 11:37 #navit: < ventYl> how much dangerous u turn is depends mostly on how stupid you are doing u-turn 11:37 #navit: < Tauso> i recently took a trip and navit kept saying u-turn if possible for 4kms until it recalculated 11:38 #navit: < tonellobello> sometimes it is legal to do a u turn 11:38 #navit: < tonellobello> but it can be very dangerous 11:38 #navit: < tonellobello> well, you don't live in Milan I guess :-) 11:38 #navit: < ventYl> navit still recalculates route if you don't go by it, doesn't it? 11:38 #navit: < tonellobello> mmm not until the u turn is the shortest path 11:39 #navit: < tonellobello> navit recalculates only when the path is not the shortest 11:39 #navit: < ventYl> i've heard lot of legends about italian drivers and saw a lot of cars from italia 11:39 #navit: < Tauso> it should be an option to say "only X u-turn" messages until recalculating 11:41 #navit: < tonellobello> yes, or a dialog could pop up when a u turn is suggested, letting you decide if recalculate or stick to it 11:42 #navit: < Tauso> i think dialog is not an good option. usually you should not need to touch the gps while driving 11:42 #navit: < tonellobello> yeah, you're right 11:42 #navit: < tonellobello> paid navigation systems includes it as an option in their settings 11:42 #navit: < tonellobello> and it is set once and for all 11:42 #navit: < ventYl> i think that it should be done in automatic way. in situation where you can't do u turn, you chose wrong way, so you don't know how go further, doesn't know roads and you have to take care of surrounding traffic requiring user to make another choice is IMHO very bad behavior 11:44 #navit: < tonellobello> yes, it should be a setting the user put at the beginning of the trip 11:44 #navit: < tonellobello> and never changes 11:44 #navit: < tonellobello> as happens in paid navigation systems 11:45 -!- geektor [5706d708@gateway/web/freenode/ip.87.6.215.8] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 11:46 #navit: < Tauso> i think if a driver doesn't take the u-turn (as suggested by navit) for some time (or driven meters), than it's likely he can't or doesn't want to take the u-turn, so navit should recalculate the route 11:47 #navit: < ventYl> that sounds good 11:47 #navit: < tonellobello> yes, in fact proprietary systems decide to recalculate the route whenever we leave the suggested one for some time 11:48 #navit: < tonellobello> this behaviour could be generally desirable 11:48 #navit: < ventYl> not all :) once navigation system routed me throught way which was closed due to repair. even after some kilometers was it still saying to return to original route 11:48 #navit: < ventYl> like it was routing me to point where i left original route 11:49 #navit: < tonellobello> true, only the recent paid systems take into account temporary obstacles to the routing 11:50 #navit: < tonellobello> but I've seen similar thing into zanavi, a navit fork 11:51 #navit: < tonellobello> you can set a road as bloked, so it would not be used to generate the route 11:51 #navit: < tonellobello> this feature should be considered too 11:51 #navit: < tonellobello> so right now 3 features: 11:51 #navit: < tonellobello> - optionally avoid u-turns 11:52 #navit: < tonellobello> - recalculate route when we leave the one suggested for some time/meters 11:52 #navit: < tonellobello> - allow to specify a blocked road so the recalc avoids it 11:53 #navit: < tonellobello> does anybody know if there is plan to add such features into navit? 11:53 #navit: < tonellobello> the third one could be grabbed from zanavi, as it is open source 11:57 #navit: < Tauso> i think the last one sounds good, but the ui for that will be very complicated. usually not whole road is cloased and what part(s) of the street does the user have to mark on the map? 11:59 #navit: < ventYl> i don't want to specify something while driving 11:59 #navit: < Tauso> i have to go now, but i definitely will read the logs, as i'm very interested in this features too. 12:00 -!- Tauso [~Thunderbi@line1.magix.net] has quit [Quit: Tauso] 12:00 #navit: < ventYl> i don't want to touch navigation until i'm in finish 12:00 #navit: < tonellobello> zanavi allows to long-press on the blocked road (usually where you are right now) to set it as blocked 12:01 #navit: < ventYl> routing engine should try to figure out i can't or won't continue by selected road regardless of reason and provide alternative route 12:01 #navit: < tonellobello> bye 12:02 #navit: < tonellobello> unless you don't introduce community features from Internet as tom tom and others do, there is no safe way to tell wether a road is blocked 12:02 #navit: < ventYl> during summer goiing to 500 km ride you can reach up to 10 closed roads due to maintenance. will you tap all the roads? 12:02 #navit: < tonellobello> before you get there 12:02 #navit: < ventYl> you don't need to know if that road is blocked. routing engine just needs to figure out you WON'T go that road 12:03 #navit: < tonellobello> well, in your scenario you should end on a closed road, then tap on it, let the navigator recalc and proceed 12:04 #navit: < ventYl> i don't want to tap anything. i have my navigation mounted in far end of dashboard around one meter away behind steering wheel and other stuff 12:04 #navit: < ventYl> it's just far 12:04 #navit: < tonellobello> I don't think there is a better way to know in advance if a road is blocked 12:05 #navit: < ventYl> i just take another road and navigation should deal with it 12:05 #navit: < ventYl> after some treshold it should consider next road segment/junction as unusable 12:05 #navit: < ventYl> at least for this routing session 12:06 #navit: < tonellobello> I don't think it is desirable to let the navigator do so much assumptions. Maybe you just stopped to pee on a side road... should it take it as a sign that the road you were taking is blocked? 12:07 #navit: < ventYl> in the place where road is closed there's usually big mess to go and tap somewhere on something as small as road 12:07 #navit: < ventYl> after some treshold 12:08 #navit: < tonellobello> the safest way to achieve what you want includes community features, like the ability to pass traffic information between users that tom tom and others do 12:09 #navit: < ventYl> sure but unless you have such informations from officials there's always at least one who have to come to such place and deal with it 12:10 #navit: < ventYl> on other side. if i simply tap road as closed due to maintenance and this information is uploaded for use by others 12:10 #navit: < ventYl> when will such information expire? 12:11 #navit: < tonellobello> hehe, that's why I say what you look for is complicated 12:11 #navit: < ventYl> i don't look for system of maintaining informations about closed roads 12:12 #navit: < ventYl> i only want that navigation system can deal with situation when i won't follow some road without any external input 12:13 #navit: < ventYl> different situation may be that i have choice to use tunnell or enjoy nice road throught hill 12:13 #navit: < tonellobello> ok, but what you look for, an automated way to decide if a road is closed or unusable, requires the software making a lot of decisions on your behalf, which is really delicate 12:13 #navit: < ventYl> have there be option: i'll take nicer road instead of tunnel? 12:14 #navit: < ventYl> what decisions on my behalf? i made decision and not followed route navigation system told me i should use. decision has been made. navigation system just has to deal with it 12:15 #navit: <@cp15> There are two solutions planned for u turns... A simpler one and a more complex one 12:15 #navit: < ventYl> i provided navigation system with following information: no this road isn't shorter for me regardless of what you are thinking 12:15 #navit: <@cp15> The simpler one blocks the road behind you after a while if you don't follow the u turn request. This will lead to a new route which might have a big detour 12:16 #navit: < tonellobello> I'm all hears @cp15 :-) 12:17 #navit: <@cp15> The second one will resolve all roads within some area (say 1 km) into two one-way-streets. This will force the routing to calculate a turn loop. This might not be possible within the area (for example you are on a long road with rare intersections and missed "your" intersection), then still a "please turn around" will be generated 12:20 #navit: < tonellobello> ok. I was thinking something more trivial, but maybe you have evidence that this doesn't work: 12:20 #navit: < tonellobello> don't take into account the road I'm on in the new route if the direction is the opposite from the one I am 12:21 #navit: <@cp15> That is the first case 12:22 #navit: < tonellobello> ah, ok 12:22 #navit: < ventYl> you just have to tell routing engine somehow that road shouldn't be used 12:23 #navit: < tonellobello> may I ask if you are a developer and you are committed to implement this feature? 12:24 #navit: < ventYl> me? nope. i just used navit before and am bitching here and there time to time 12:24 #navit: < tonellobello> not you, sorry :-) 12:25 #navit: <@cp15> tonellobello, how about you? 12:25 #navit: < tonellobello> I am a navit user and osm contributor 12:26 #navit: < tonellobello> I'm an IT, but have no previous experience on navit development 12:26 #navit: < tonellobello> could take the challenge if nobody could tough 12:27 #navit: <@cp15> You could convince me if you could do something other reasonable for navit :-) 12:27 #navit: < tonellobello> ok, suggest me something, I would help gladly 12:28 #navit: < tonellobello> maybe something to introduce me to the codebase 12:29 #navit: < tonellobello> even docs if needed 12:29 #navit: <@cp15> You could look into trac.navit-project.org, there are thousands of unfinished things 12:30 #navit: <@cp15> BTW: Here is how I plan to implement this feature 12:30 #navit: <@cp15> You might know that navit contains something like a c script interpreter 12:30 #navit: <@cp15> I would extend this so a c script will be called on every navigation instruction 12:31 #navit: <@cp15> If the instruction is "turn_around" a counter will be increased. If it is something different, the counter will be cleared 12:31 #navit: <@cp15> If the counter reaches a certain limit (say 3), routing core will be informed that the current street should be blocked in the backwards direction 12:31 #navit: <@cp15> This allows maximum user configurability :-) 12:32 #navit: < tonellobello> sounds legit! :-) 12:32 #navit: < ventYl> how often "every navigation instruction" is called? everytime going from one path segment to another? 12:33 #navit: <@cp15> Every time navit says something 12:33 #navit: <@cp15> So quite rare and no performance problem 12:33 #navit: < tonellobello> seems a good solution to me 12:33 #navit: < ventYl> it means that i can drive 10 kilometers until navit sets road behind me as blocked? 12:33 #navit: < tonellobello> now, can I ask a more human question to you? 12:35 #navit: < tonellobello> lately I have been contacted by zanavi's main developer 12:35 #navit: < tonellobello> seems to have some good idea, and a lot of resistance to some of yours 12:36 #navit: < tonellobello> I was thinking about contributing to the cause of open navigation 12:37 #navit: < tonellobello> but I dont know how my efforts could affetc both projects 12:37 #navit: < tonellobello> is there still a common codebase between the two projects? 12:37 #navit: < tonellobello> do you share ideas or implementations? 12:38 #navit: <@cp15> zanavis code is so terrible that there is no chance to integrate it back into navit 12:38 #navit: < tonellobello> are the two projects going to merge again in the future? 12:39 #navit: <@cp15> I don't know whether or how often zoff integrates changes to navit 12:39 #navit: <@cp15> Quite unlikely 12:40 #navit: < tonellobello> I see. The good ideas he had are this in my opinion: 12:40 #navit: < tonellobello> - internet search integrated into the app (to use when offline search is uneffective) 12:41 #navit: < tonellobello> - ability to set a road as blocked so the route is recalculated excluding it 12:41 #navit: < tonellobello> that said 12:42 #navit: < tonellobello> I think he's too stubbornely attached to its offline search, which require way too much software cleverness to be effective 12:43 #navit: < tonellobello> the one in navit is much better, less prone to ambiguity, and conforming to the navigator's system standard of drilling to the destination 12:43 #navit: <@cp15> Both wouldn't be too hard to implement. However I would like to have the online search platform independent which means the use of android apis doesn't help. And then since navit is offline of course a working offline search is a more interesting target 12:44 #navit: <@cp15> Implementing the road as blocked isn't too difficult, the code is there it just needs an user interface 12:45 #navit: < tonellobello> this is good news 12:46 #navit: < tonellobello> I have to go now, I will dig into the bug tracking and see what I can do 12:46 #navit: < tonellobello> thanks for the info 12:46 #navit: < tonellobello> keep up the good work! 12:49 -!- tonellobello [53e04526@gateway/web/freenode/ip.83.224.69.38] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 16:29 -!- xenos1984 [~quassel@194.126.109.165] has joined #navit 16:43 -!- Tauso [~Thunderbi@line1.magix.net] has joined #navit 16:51 -!- Robotaxi [3ef5dbf5@gateway/web/freenode/ip.62.245.219.245] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 16:58 -!- Tauso [~Thunderbi@line1.magix.net] has quit [Quit: Tauso] 17:31 -!- fOB [~fob@ip-178-202-247-64.unitymediagroup.de] has joined #navit 17:31 -!- geektor [523bcb2d@gateway/web/freenode/ip.82.59.203.45] has joined #navit 17:32 #navit: < geektor> hi developers! maybe a cleaning of attr_def.h is needed? some values have a fixme comment: ATTR(town_id), ATTR(street_id), ATTR(district_id), ATTR(trackingo) 17:33 #navit: < geektor> and this line should be removed? ATTR(route_follow_straight_REMOVE) // This is to be removed with the next version 17:35 #navit: < geektor> btw...what is the use of ATTR(street_name_systematic) ? 17:58 #navit: < geektor> i will read the logs if there is a reply 17:58 -!- geektor [523bcb2d@gateway/web/freenode/ip.82.59.203.45] has left #navit [] 18:00 -!- fOB [~fob@ip-178-202-247-64.unitymediagroup.de] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 19:20 -!- drlizau [~liz@billiau.net] has joined #navit 19:21 -!- ventYl [~ventyl@ip-88-212-35-8.antik.sk] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 20:13 -!- drlizau [~liz@billiau.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 20:18 -!- woglinde [~henning@f052231166.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #navit 21:55 -!- KaZeR_W [~Z30@77.242.201.49] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 22:02 -!- KaZeR_W [~Z30@82.220.1.199] has joined #navit 22:24 -!- tg [~irc@2001:738:2001:2078:0:215:11:82] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 22:26 -!- tg [~irc@2001:738:2001:2078:0:215:11:82] has joined #navit 22:30 -!- ventyl [~ventyl@ip-88-212-35-8.antik.sk] has joined #navit 22:33 -!- xenos1984 [~quassel@194.126.109.165] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 22:51 -!- woglinde [~henning@f052231166.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] --- Log closed Thu Mar 14 00:00:14 2013