[OSM-newbies] Quality data

[Nick Black]

Hi ael,

The routing is not wrong - a shared node implies connectedness.  If a bridge
crosses a road as in the situation you describe there should not be a node.
Looks like you need to do a bit of correcting... ;-)

If JOSM is misleading it should be flagged to the JOSM devs - I'll forward
this onto the dev list.

Cheers,



On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 10:33 PM, ael <law_ence.dev at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> H.S.Rai wrote:
> > To make one's data of good quality, do check data for routing from
> > website http://www.yournavigation.org/
>
> This raises an embarrassingly simple question: if two ways share a node,
> does that imply that one can travel from one to the other?
>
> Example: a minor road crosses a major road on a bridge. I normally have
> a shared node in the centre of the bridge. With the layers set properly.
>
> But trying your router at www.yournavigation.org, it produces an
> impossible route "jumping off the bridge".
>
> I was led into the habit of including a common node by the josm
> validator which used to object to "ways crossing": that is without the
> shared node. I have just done a quick search on the wiki to see whether
> the semantics is specified there, but couldn't find anything. My
> suspicion is that a shared node implies navigability, but it does not
> seem to be stated clearly. And the the josm validator is at best
> misleading? Or is the router wrong?
>
> ael
>
> _______________________________________________
> newbies mailing list
> newbies at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
>



-- 
Nick Black
--------------------------------
http://www.blacksworld.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/newbies/attachments/20081102/1090c1b0/attachment.html>