[Tagging] Navaid relation?

[Jan S]

Am 22. Mai 2019 00:44:51 MESZ schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>:
>
>22 May 2019, 00:38 by marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com:
>
>> Le 22.05.19 à 00:16, Florian Lohoff a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>> Hi marc,
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:02:53PM +0000, marc marc wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Le 21.05.19 à 23:46, Florian Lohoff a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Currently all Routing/Navigation application try hard to find
>>>>> the nearest or best point on the routeable network for a given
>>>>> destination lat/lon or object.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> with best, you mean : only one ? that look like wrong
>>>> a destination can have several points depending on the type
>>>> of locomotion.
>>>> the same type of locomotion can have several points, e.g. several
>ways
>>>> that desert a station by foot, several other for car, ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is the expectation to get navigated to when selecting a park?
>>>
>>
>> there is no such thing as "a single point that makes everyone agree"
>> take the case of a square park fenced by a fence, surrounded by 4 
>> streets each with a pedestrian entrance to the park.
>> those arriving from the north will probably want to stop at the
>street 
>> to the north, while those arriving from the south will probably want
>to 
>> stop at the street at the south entrance.
>> Those who have difficulty walking will probably prefer the car park 
>> closest to an entrance, while others will prefer parking for people
>with 
>> reduced mobility or free parking, all while they have all come by
>car.
>> on the basis of which objective criteria will you decide which point
>of 
>> the public network is most suitable to reach the park?
>>
>Also, some people may drive (bicycle), other may arrive by a public
>transport
>others may walk or drive (by car) etc.
>
>See for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.06288/19.91742
><https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.06288/19.91742>
>- a park that has multiple entrances, each may be preferred in some
>situation.

I am also against mapping for navigation purposes. The data shall reflect the truth on the ground, all else is up to the programme making use of that data.

In case of a park with multiple entrances (which would obviously have to be recognisable by other programmes), it's up to the routing software to route you either to the entrance closest to you, the one that's best to be reached given the means of transport chosen or maybe offer you a choice of entrances to select from.

The same goes for big complexes like airports. Take Madrid Barajas or London Heathrow with terminal buildings at different locations, plus a cargo area and maybe a general aviation area. Here, you obviously have to chose a specific point you want to be routed to, and then the routing software should take you to an entry point of that specific place.

I imagine that like on a taxi. If you say "Take me to Heathrow", the driver will inevitably ask "Which terminal?". If you say "Take me to Central Park", the driver will, again, ask you for a more specific location or make a decision for you (the nearest/furthest entry, depending on his/her honesty ;)). These very decisions should be made, or these very questions asked by a routing programme.

Best, Jan