- moves collapse into a dedicated set of functions / files
- make collapse scenarios distinct (slight performance cost)
- reduce verbosity for short name segments (now actually working, was supposed to do so before)
Lane Anticipation currently triggers on quick steps with lanes. This
changeset makes the "quick" part more dynamic by taking lanes left and
right of the turn into account. The reasoning for this is as follows.
The user can drive on the leftmost or rightmost lane and has to cross
all lanes left or right of the turn, respecitvely.
We scale our threshold appropriately, which now means the threshold
describes the duration the user needs for crossing _a single lane_.
Note: this is a heuristic and assumes the worst case. Which in my
opinion is fine to do since triggering Lane Anticipation in complex
scenarios is desirable.
rename intersection (engine version) to IntermediateIntersection
follow coding convention for existing functions, move invalidate into routeStep
moved elongate into route step
move forward-step-signage into route step
replace post-processings `forwardInto` with `RouteStep` functionality. Don't change maneuver in step
separete declaration and implementation
instead of artificially removing lanes from a roundabout, we don't assing them in the first place.
this also prevents a problem where we would end up collapsing turns with lanes in a roundabout
removes duplicated includes
removes unused includes
eliminates dedicated toolkits that resulted in circular dependencies
moves functionality close to data, where possible
Before we only worked on subsequent quick turns, as in:
`right, right` keeps the user on the rightmost lanes.
This changeset modifies the logic to work on any subsequent steps
that are "quick" and have lane information we can constrain later.
Because we do not have a from-lane => to-lanes mapping we take the
lanes left and right of the turn lanes into account when heuristically
assigning the leftmost / rightmost lanes.
There are some edge cases where this still does not give us the optimal
solution but it gets close to what is actually possible at the moment
without having a lane mapping in post-processing.
References:
- https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/issues/2625
fix rebase
After half a day of looking at the tagging and the data came to the
following conclusion:
We can't keep the user to the innermost / outermost lanes depending on
the exit the route takes: we found situations where both heuristics were
wrong.
Even on popular roundabouts the tagging is often wrong or in the best
case not present at all.
There are at least two different ways to interpret roundabout
indications: 1/ where e.g. a right arrow on the lane indicates turn
restrictions for the roundabout and the need to take this lane to exit
the roundabout to the right (possibly skipping multiple exits) and 2/
where a right arrow just means this is a lane in a immediate right turn.
Example: Australia marks lanes with arrows that seem to indicate
"angles you can exit the roundabout from", for example, these two ways:
- http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/320941710
- http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42918021
Whereas Germany marks lanes with "directions you can travel in these
lanes immediately after entering the roundabout":
- http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/52578338
These two different interpretations of how to draw the arrows on the
roads mean we have conflicting solutions to "which lanes can you use to
take exit B from entry A" based on locality.
Continuing to tag ways based on lane markings is no problem, but
unfortunately, we can't reliably resolve good advice for navigation
system users (like "use the inside lane to take the second exit at the
roundabout"), there are too many situations that would generate bad
instructions (instructions that tell users to go into a lane they
shouldn't use).
