<p><a href="https://github.com/omgitsgela" class="user-mention">@omgitsgela</a> Maybe easiest just to rename this ticket?</p>
<p>(From IRC)</p>
<p>Test case is <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=42.69290%2C-71.14200%3B42.69610%2C-71.13930#map=17/42.69493/-71.14064" rel="nofollow">https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=42.69290%2C-71.14200%3B42.69610%2C-71.13930#map=17/42.69493/-71.14064</a> which returns <a href="https://router.project-osrm.org/route/v1/driving/-71.142,42.6929;-71.1393,42.6961?overview=false&geometries=polyline&steps=true" rel="nofollow">https://router.project-osrm.org/route/v1/driving/-71.142,42.6929;-71.1393,42.6961?overview=false&geometries=polyline&steps=true</a> . In the response, <code>steps[1]</code> contains a new attribute of <code>"exits": "43"</code> which could be written out.</p>
<p>OSRM's navigational guidance has been moving on rapidly and 100% feature parity would probably be difficult, but one approach might be to have a hash of extra attributes for each parsed route step (e.g. <code>{ "exit": 43 }</code>) which could then be written out below the main instruction, so there's no need to rephrase every possible instruction each time OSRM changes its output. I do something similar for cycle.travel's instructions and it works quite well.</p>

<p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">—<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href="https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/1768#issuecomment-368339670">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABWnLYnZloFJBSQiqr2oxBSKZbv2KPhbks5tYbw8gaJpZM4SSX7v">mute the thread</a>.<img alt="" height="1" src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/ABWnLd3TVbmkqjn20o1s3b0FyneBgxW9ks5tYbw8gaJpZM4SSX7v.gif" width="1" /></p>
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/EmailMessage">
<div itemprop="action" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ViewAction">
  <link itemprop="url" href="https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/1768#issuecomment-368339670"></link>
  <meta itemprop="name" content="View Issue"></meta>
</div>
<meta itemprop="description" content="View this Issue on GitHub"></meta>
</div>

<script type="application/json" data-scope="inboxmarkup">{"api_version":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website","title":"openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88-11e6-95fc-7290892c7bb5.png","avatar_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/15842166/7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@systemed in #1768: @omgitsgela Maybe easiest just to rename this ticket?\r\n\r\n(From IRC)\r\n\r\nTest case is https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car\u0026route=42.69290%2C-71.14200%3B42.69610%2C-71.13930#map=17/42.69493/-71.14064 which returns https://router.project-osrm.org/route/v1/driving/-71.142,42.6929;-71.1393,42.6961?overview=false\u0026geometries=polyline\u0026steps=true . In the response, `steps[1]` contains a new attribute of `\"exits\": \"43\"` which could be written out.\r\n\r\nOSRM's navigational guidance has been moving on rapidly and 100% feature parity would probably be difficult, but one approach might be to have a hash of extra attributes for each parsed route step (e.g. `{ \"exit\": 43 }`) which could then be written out below the main instruction, so there's no need to rephrase every possible instruction each time OSRM changes its output. I do something similar for cycle.travel's instructions and it works quite well."}],"action":{"name":"View Issue","url":"https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/1768#issuecomment-368339670"}}}</script>