Talk:Relation Analyzer

Very useful piece of software, I've fixed several relations already thanks to this. I have a few questions as well:

• Is it aware of the fact that a route is a closed route (i.e. the end connects back to the start)? Will it give any indication that it sees the route correctly as one closed route and not as a open route with a gap in it? I'm asking because I've removed a few gaps in some closed routes and now I don't know if there's one gap left somewhere or not...
• Can you provide links to the normal osmarender and mapnik maps and put a marker at the exact location? The cycle map doesn't make much sense for walking/bus/tram/whatever routes.
• It seems to give some awkward results in a few cases, like for http://betaplace.emaitie.de/webapps.relation-analyzer/analyze.jsp?relationId=13644 (see 13644 13644. It certainly doesn't have a gap of 0.5km as you can see in the relation browser. Is it perhaps taking forward and backward roles into account and might it be a problem there? never mind, seems like somehow a way was duplicated
• Something more challenging: would it be possible to provide something like in the relation browser where the the route is drawn over the map (preferably in different colours for each segments)?
• A list of way ids in each route segment would be very useful as well.
• How does the analyzer calculate the lenght of the relation? There are sometimes relations who have different ways for each directions (for example because of oneway-cycleways) It could be useful, that the parts of the relation wich have a tag "forward" count only with the half lenght of the way.--KartoGrapHiti 10:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the program. --Eimai 13:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Source

Is the source code for the analyzers available? --Eimai 20:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm stymied

The relation analyzer looks foolproof but it seems I am putting its foolproof to its test. Could anyone look at this relation and tell me what's wrong with it? I don't really see any loose ends. Ipofanes 16:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)==

For some reason the analyzer is splitting up according to the roles the ways have as member of the relations. So all "backward" ways are grouped together and all "forward" ways are. So that's basically making the analyzer useless for oneway routes. I mailed the mailing list some time ago to notify about this problem but never got a reply. But a fix here (or rather, revert to old behaviour) is really required here. --Eimai 20:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Same Error when platforms (highway=platform or public_transport=platform) are included in a relation. The platforms are interpreted as ways and therefore you are told there is no connection between them. --Der Gevatter 22:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any other analyzer that will combine ways with a specific role with ways without a role? --NE2 23:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Status

What's the status of Analyzer. It seems to be temporarily down? When will it be back, and if it's not coming back could we have the source code to re-implement it/spread the load? Martin Renvoize 21:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, appears to be back up and running now! Martin Renvoize 08:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

public_trasport Relations

The analyzer says the relation #7842093 is "Split into several pieces". The relation has the following main attributes:

• type=route
• route=subway

Actually the relation has the following members

• a set of stops (points) - role stop
• a set of platforms (ways or areas) - role platform
• and and linear set of ways describing the itenerary of this metro line - with no role

Are any error in the members? if not, why the analyser is not aware of the role of the members ?

Relation with ways and relations

Does the analyzer know about relations inside other relations? I analyzed a route relation with it and it showed that the route has gaps in places when I am able to find relations (made of ways) inside of the primary relation that link many of the gaps? Is there a tool that will break a relation into all of its children relations' ways to check all parts of a relation? (Looking at relation #1319486) --Aenet (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)