<html>
At 2010-07-22 08:25, Dylan Semler wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:08 AM,
Dylan Semler
<<a href="mailto:dylan.semler@gmail.com">dylan.semler@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:
<dl><br><br>
<dd>On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:57 AM, andrzej zaborowski
<<a href="mailto:balrogg@gmail.com">balrogg@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
<dd>On 11 July 2010 10:23, Maarten Deen
<<a href="mailto:mdeen@xs4all.nl">mdeen@xs4all.nl</a>> wrote:
<dd>> If you have a layout like this (use a fixed-width font):
<dd>>
<dd>> | |
<dd>> A----+-+
<dd>> | +----B
<dd>> C----+-+
<dd>> | |
<dd>>
<dd>> And you want to go from B to A, why would routing software say
"go straight
<dd>> on" and not "go right, then go left"?<br><br>
<dd>My opinion is that it is a routing software issue after all...
<br><br>
<dd>>
<dd>> And option is to map it like this:
<dd>> | |
<dd>> A----+ |
<dd>> |\|
<dd>> | +----B
<dd>> |/|
<dd>> C----+ |
<dd>> | |<br><br>
</dl><br>
How about grouping all of the nodes of the intersection into a
relation? Routing software can treat it as a single intersection
and the map can reflect how the roads are actually laid.<br><br>
Actually, I see there already is a proposed feature to use relations to
handle routing instructions for complicated turns[1]<br><br>
[1]<a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Turn_hints">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Turn_hints</a></blockquote><br><br>
But these are not "complicated intersections" - they are quite
common perpendicular intersections of two roads, and mappers have drawn
them in all possible ways. I don't think it's reasonable to ask mappers
to have to jump through yet another hoop to map something so common -
they simply aren't going to do it.<br><br>
I spend a totally unreasonable amount of time mapping turn restrictions
(mostly no-u-turn) as it is, and even that is hard to justify.<br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
--<br>
Alan Mintz <Alan_Mintz+OSM@Earthlink.net><br>
</html>