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

[Lukas Sommer]

Okay. Thank you a lot for your feedback!

Lukas

PS: For your information: The issue where we are discussing this is
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/374

Lukas Sommer


2014-07-28 7:22 GMT+00:00 Peter <graphhopper at gmx.de>:

>  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>:
>
>>  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
>
>
-------------- n�chster Teil --------------
Ein Dateianhang mit HTML-Daten wurde abgetrennt...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/graphhopper/attachments/20140729/4624dec9/attachment.html>