[Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

[Nathan Mills]

I'm still confused as to why the consumers of a relation can't use the forward/backward roles of the ways referenced therein rather than requiring completely separate relations. Why do we need two or more relations plus a super relation per road route even for undivided highways? Even for a somewhat experienced mapper like myself, it makes the editing process that much more error prone.

-Nathan

Chris Lawrence <lordsutch at gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
>wrote:
>
>> Not a fan.  It greatly complicates things for information that can
>either
>> be gleaned obviously or is a "nice to have."  Having 3+ relations for
>> something that isn't fully divided just complicates things, with the
>> exception edge case of a relation that starts or ends on a divided
>highway.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 9:30 AM, James Mast
><rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I'm just curious, but what's everybody's opinion on this?  I know
>it's
>>> acceptable for the Interstates (some are setup this way, some
>aren't) since
>>> they are all divided, but what about for US Highways and State
>Highways?  I
>>> know that we want to eventually have the cardinal directions in OSM
>for the
>>> routers so they can properly tell people which direction the of the
>highway
>>> they need to turn onto (like turn left onto Westbound US-30).
>>> ....
>>> Also, on a side note, do you guys think we should remove the
>"symbol"
>>> tags in the relations from all the Interstates/US highways they show
>up in
>>> at the same time?
>>>
>>> So, let's get this discussion going!
>>>
>>
>IMO direction-based relations, with correct forward/backward tagging,
>are
>borderline necessary for directions based on relations to work
>correctly in
>the US and Canada. That's something that's sorely lacking (along with
>exit
>numbers and usage of "destination" tags) in OSRM today.
>
>All we should need is a single super relation for each route, along
>with
>reasonable numbers of directional relations with way members - since
>each
>directional relation will have 1/2ish the number of members, there's no
>reason to confine them to one per state unless we're doing that to
>match up
>with Wikipedia articles.
>
>As for symbol tags, I'd vote to transition them to the wiki:symbol
>namespace if possible.
>
>
>Chris
>-- 
>Chris Lawrence <lordsutch at gmail.com>
>
>Website: http://www.cnlawrence.com/
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Talk-us mailing list
>Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20131118/cb9dfbeb/attachment-0001.html>