<div dir="ltr"><div>Okay. Thank you a lot for your feedback!<br><br>Lukas<br><br></div>PS: For your information: The issue where we are discussing this is <a href="https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/374">https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/374</a><br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div>Lukas Sommer</div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-07-28 7:22 GMT+00:00 Peter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:graphhopper@gmx.de" target="_blank">graphhopper@gmx.de</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Hi Lukas,<br>
<br>
yes, then 4 would be easier than 1. Unsure if it would be easier
than 3 though, because for 4 you would need to include ways which
we would need to exclude for routing (counterintuitive?).<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Peter.<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 28.07.2014 00:04, Lukas Sommer wrote:<br>
</div></div></div><div><div class="h5">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>Hey Peter.<br>
<br>
Thanks for your response.<br>
<br>
</div>
Indeed we didn’t want to simply “map towards the routing
engine”. But we would like to here varios opinions – if
routing is possible, if rendering is possible, and over all
if it is suitable for the community (=easy to use).<br>
<br>
</div>
The idea of possibility 4 was to draw an area more or less
there where you find the junction on the ground. <a href="http://www.file-upload.net/download-9283152/junction_mockup.png.html" target="_blank">http://www.file-upload.net/download-9283152/junction_mockup.png.html</a>
has a picture (didn’t know where to upload elsewhere, sorry
for inconvenience). The green line is the way in OSM that
forms our junction area. The blue points are nodes that are
shared between the area and the incoming/outgoing ways
(highway=*).<br>
<br>
</div>
The reason for this idea was that is is easier to use for
beginners. It is less complex than a relation. And you do not
have to duplicate information like in possibility, so you will
probably have less work to do it – and less spelling errors in
the database. Our idea was that its maybe easier to use for
routing engines that possibility 1. Is this correct or no?<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Lukas<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>Lukas Sommer</div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2014-07-27 20:13 GMT+00:00 Peter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:graphhopper@gmx.de" target="_blank">graphhopper@gmx.de</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Hey Lukas,<br>
<br>
first of all, I think one should not map towards a
routing engine or renderer although I sometimes wish it
was ;). Instead I would try to make it how it is in
reality.<br>
<br>
Of course from a programmers perspective point 2 would
be the simplest. But point 3 would be probably closer to
reality and also easy to implement.<br>
<br>
I'm not sure I understand point 4: will the area be
connected to the ways or just 'overlap' the area where
the way form the junction? Then this would be as complex
as point 1 to implement as one would have to query some
spatial helper datastructure, but maybe point 1 is the
hardest (just guessing). <br>
<br>
1 and 4 are of course not impossible, but more complex
than 2 or 3.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Peter.
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
On <a href="tel:27.07.2014%2013" value="+12707201413" target="_blank">27.07.2014 13</a>:23, Lukas Sommer
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hello.<br>
<br>
</div>
There are currently some efforts to get junction
names and traffic signal names rendered in
openstreetmap-carto. The tagging for complex
junctions isn’t yet well defined. So I would like
to hear your opinion and your advice about which
of our ideas would be suitable/best for
routing/turn-to-turn navigation.<br>
<br>
Background:In some countries (Japan, Korea, Ivory
Coast…) people orient themselves in the local area
using the names of road junctions (like crossroads
or roundabouts) or traffic signals rather then the
names of streets. While street names also exist,
they are not important for orientation. (Note:
This is about orientation in the local area, thus
different from the names of motorway junctions
who’s names serve for orientation at large
distances.)<br>
<div>
<div><br>
Example: <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Junction_yes_example_2.png" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Junction_yes_example_2.png</a>
<br>
<br>
Possibility 1: A simple node in the middle of
the junction. This node contains the name of
the junction. The node is not connected with
any of the ways.<br>
<br>
Possibility 2: All shared nodes (of the
crossing ways) contain the name of the
junction.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Possibility 3: A relation contains the name
of the junction and has all shared nodes (of
the crossing ways) as members.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Possiblity 4: An area contains the name of
the junction. The area covers the outline of
the physical area of the junction on the
ground. The area shares individual nodes with
all incoming and outgoing ways. (In the
example: 8 shared nodes)<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>From the point of view of a developer of
routing/turn-to-turn navigation: Which of
theses solutions would be perfect, which would
be still acceptable, and which would be a
no-go?<br>
<br>
<div>Lukas Sommer</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
GraphHopper mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GraphHopper@openstreetmap.org">GraphHopper@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/graphhopper" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/graphhopper</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>