Now Testing: City street/node updates

When does that cruise off the African coast leave? :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

Hi James, I see you have updated Diemen, many thanks for that! Most of the unrunnable streets have disappeared, I have missed a few ways in OSM that I will edit soon. Also a few new streets were added so I have my running goals set out.

One thing though, there are now 4 streets without nodes. They are not new roads (in reality) so I don’t know if the nodes were removed in CS or if they were added as empty in the last update. All 4 are pedestrian ways, but other pedestrian ways seem unaffected.

The streets:
Hato
CS: CityStrides
OSM: Way: ‪Hato‬ (‪361704833‬) | OpenStreetMap

Krenteboompjeshof
CS: CityStrides
OSM: Way: ‪Krenteboompjeshof‬ (‪7043541‬) | OpenStreetMap

Sierkershof
CS: CityStrides
OSM: Way: ‪Sierkershof‬ (‪285578694‬) | OpenStreetMap

Sierpeerhof
CS: CityStrides
OSM: Way: ‪Sierpeerhof‬ (‪285578695‬) | OpenStreetMap

Example of an unaffected street:
Trompetboomhof
CS: Trompetboomhof in Diemen, Noord-Holland - CityStrides
OSM: Way: ‪Trompetboomhof‬ (‪285578696‬) | OpenStreetMap

Any idea if these streets existed prior to me running the update?
I’m wondering if the update deleted their nodes…

In the meantime, I’ve deleted all no-node streets in Diemen & I’ve started the update code again. This recreated the no-node streets. :thinking:

It’s weird how Solitude has its nodes extending into Hato: Solitude in Diemen, Noord-Holland - CityStrides

:thinking: My query is finding Hato, and it is listed as having 5 nodes, and all of those nodes are also present in the response, and it seems like some/all of them are present for Solitude’s street record.
I’ll review my city-update code to see what I’m doing wrong…

Update: I found Solitude in OSM, and it definitely doesn’t reference Hato’s nodes: Way: ‪Solitude‬ (‪445224343‬) | OpenStreetMap

I think they didn’t exist before, because at least 2 I have not run, and they would be on my list.

I noticed the thing with Solitude too, maybe a section was renamed in OSM? On Google Maps Hato does not even exist. If I get close I’ll check what the situation on the ground is, but I trust OSM in this respect.

Maybe the issue is that these all have existing nodes that were updated to belong to different streets?
I also noticed this: Bart van der Leckhof (a new street) Bart van der Leckhof in Diemen, Noord-Holland - CityStrides
OSM: Way: ‪Bart van der Leckhof‬ (‪492171674‬) | OpenStreetMap
It has only 1 node. Could it be that the other node(s) were already present in CS?

I think I figured it out. It looks like I skip creating a node if its OSM ID already exists in CityStrides, but that means I’m not creating a node if it was already added for a different street.

I haven’t yet figured out why some nodes are associated to different streets, but I’m guessing that it’ll be some similar logic where I’m not taking into account which street I’m currently working on during this update process.

Update those nodes on Solitude were created in 2019 during the initial import, so I’ve manually deleted them. I’ll have a new version of the update code to try later today.

OK, I think that’s all fixed up now.

1 Like

I’m having the same problem (I think):

Waltham:

Belmont:

How do those look now?
Sounds like I should just start over with my city updates…

1 Like

Good, thank you. I assume the percentages will update at some point as well?

Nevermind, they did.

It’s awesome that OSM updates will soon be a reality!

Can you update
San Jose, CA: San Jose, California - CityStrides
Campbell,CA: Campbell, California - CityStrides
Santa Clara, CA: Santa Clara, California - CityStrides

Thanks!

1 Like

I agree, looks good. Many thanks!

Want to carpool (or run?!) to the docks in Boston? :slight_smile:

I’m deeply impressed by your greater Boston map! FYI, it is possible to get the two streets you are missing in Cambridge now. Aberdeen Way is easy – it just had a few nodes added that go around the bend.

Dawes St is harder, because there is a huge amount of construction around there, and the road itself is actually closed. However, there is a pedestrian walkway that will get you far enough to capture the node.

I would suggest running Jacobs St, too, which I added to OSM a while ago.

Happy striding.

Nice to see updates making it in. Can you update cities/95511 and cities/96515 if I’m not to late to the party? If you get this working perfectly, would future changes be updated automatic, manually or once every month/year?

While your updating…if you want to do my 3 cities I have made OSM changes on.
Will this update also take out the nodes that are not in cities borders?
Thanks :smile:

If, you’re still working through on a city-by-city basis, I’d like to request:

London Borough of Croydon (London Borough of Croydon, England - CityStrides)

and

London Borough of Sutton (London Borough of Sutton, England - CityStrides)

Thanks!

Well, you’re only including streets with a name, so that excludes the vast vast majority of driveway scenarios. But in general, I think you probably don’t want to be sending people down driveways.

Thanks for the tips. I was going to get Aberdeen the other day, but I think I strained a core muscle while trail running so I’m nursing that at the moment. I may wait until the construction is done to get the others. We’ll see.

To say I’m a bit obsessed with this site is an understatement. It’s been a great motivator when not training for a race. I’ve been a user for about 5 years now I think? Having been furloughed during the pandemic has accelerated my progress in Boston much further than I had planned.

Happy striding to you as well!

1 Like

Thanks to all your hard work I managed to get 100% of Diemen :100:! I was not the first though, that honour goes to @joostov, well done!

2 Likes

i have the same issues. squares seems to have excessive numbers of nodes all around the border of the square, which makes it hard and often almost impossible because buildings will cause GPS drift along those borders more easily.

1 Like