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

[Peter]

Hi Lukas,

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?).

Regards,
Peter.

On 28.07.2014 00:04, Lukas Sommer wrote:
> Hey Peter.
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
> 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).
>
> The idea of possibility 4 was to draw an area more or less there where
> you find the junction on the ground.
> http://www.file-upload.net/download-9283152/junction_mockup.png.html
> 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=*).
>
> 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?
>
> Regards
>
> Lukas
>
> Lukas Sommer
>
>
> 2014-07-27 20:13 GMT+00:00 Peter <graphhopper at gmx.de
> <mailto:graphhopper at gmx.de>>:
>
>     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 <tel:27.07.2014%2013>: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
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/graphhopper/attachments/20140728/20c6d556/attachment.html>