[Talk-us] Directional relation roles where signs disagree

[Paul Johnson]

With these split relations, ways should have forward/backwards, relations
should have cardinal directions in a super relation.  Gets to be a real
pain in the ass when ways are using cardinal direction roles.

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Minh Nguyen <minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us>
wrote:

> At least ten miles of I-275 near Cincinnati are consistently signed as
> north/southbound on guide signs [1] and reassurance markers [2] but
> consistently signed as east/westbound on tenth-mile markers [3] and ramp
> name signs, as well as in ODOT's straight line diagram [4].
>
> What roles should these ways have in the I-275 route relation? They're
> currently "north" and "south" with a note describing the contradiction. [5]
> Would it be better to change the roles to "north;east" and "south;west"?
> Should we revert to "forward" in weird cases like these? (It's bad enough
> that this is Circle Freeway, in which each direction already refers to
> disconnected segments in 2-3 different states.)
>
> [1] <http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/ufaXmzVwXv5vWJM_PsDJtw>
>     <http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/pcZJlkRsAPG7MRApWOwT_Q>
>     <http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/BWbzCJflIUvwV8u8bskaaw>
>
> [2] <http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/nfX2M7XTTeHxSR7PvTVW3g>
>
> [3] <http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/HpzPH_tPp-x_A8WXBBCplA>
>     <http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/LkDSrQekv5nnAu1-hhGZ-w>
>
> [4] <http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/TechServ/
> TIM/Documents/SLD/pdf_files/HAMir0275r.pdf>
>
> [4] For example, <http://osm.org/way/31563007>
>
> --
> minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140925/dc65a0cc/attachment.html>