[GraphHopper] Suitable (for routing/turn-to-turn navigation) tagging for junction names and traffic signal names?

[Peter]

Hey Lukas,

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.

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.

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).

1 and 4 are of course not impossible, but more complex than 2 or 3.

Regards,
Peter.

On 27.07.2014 13:23, Lukas Sommer wrote:
> Hello.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.)
>
> Example:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Junction_yes_example_2.png
>
> 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.
>
> Possibility 2: All shared nodes (of the crossing ways) contain the
> name of the junction.
>
> Possibility 3: A relation contains the name of the junction and has
> all shared nodes (of the crossing ways) as members.
>
> 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)
>
> 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?
>
> Lukas Sommer
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GraphHopper mailing list
> GraphHopper at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/graphhopper

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/graphhopper/attachments/20140727/093b2f1d/attachment.html>