[Talk-ca] Road directionality (direction ir route relation)

[Daniel @jfd553]

Well, I understand that the approach used to create route relations with main roads network in Canada hasn't really been discussed on Talk-ca. So, if I have the time (lol) to create the route relations expected from JOSM, when I meet them, would be okay.

Daniel

-----Original Message-----
From: Jarek Piórkowski [mailto:jarek at piorkowski.ca] 
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2022 21:47
To: talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Road directionality (direction ir route relation)

On 01/04/2022 16:29, Daniel @jfd553 wrote:
> I keep seeing the following JOSM warning: Role “east, west, north or 
> south” is not part of expected values 
> “<empty>/forward/backward/link/guidepost”.
> 
> I’ve tried to understand why there is still a JOSM warning while this is 
> so widely used in Canada and the US. The wiki [1] suggests creating one 
> relation per direction and then a super-relation to group them. Isn’t it 
> the best (more universal) way to it? I don’t recall any discussion about 
> it in talk-ca.
> 
> Any thoughts about it?
> 
> Daniel
> 
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Route_directions 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Route_directions>

I've seen the route super-relation used for the QEW and it seems to work 
well: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/102339. It is more work 
though. JOSM warnings are generally aimed at people with a lot of time :)

I'm also not sure if the expectation would be that: a) collector 
roadways are not included in the direction-relation; or b) collector 
roadways _are_ included, at cost of the relation members no longer being 
continuous/sortable?

--Jarek

_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca