[Talk-us] Relation roles: Clockwise and Counterclockwise route directions? (e.g. Pittsburgh's Belts)
tod at fitchdesign.com
Mon Dec 26 21:59:24 UTC 2016
Not sure about the beltway example, but I prefer having one relation for each direction of a highway and then a super relation to tie those two together. That avoids the issues you pointed out earlier where one direction may take a slip/link while the other direction does not. It also makes it easy to see, at least in JOSM relation editing, that all the segments link up properly. And finally, though probably not as important, allows one to mark each segment in the relation with “forward” which is universally understood by the whole tool chain while many have issues with members marked as “north”, “south”, etc.
I suppose one could handle the beltway example with a CW relation and a CCW relation, with all members being tagged as “forward”, and then a super relation to tie those to together. Signage with stuff like north/south on them could be handled with destination sign tagging.
> On Dec 26, 2016, at 1:41 PM, Albert Pundt <roadsguy99 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I know that north/south/east/west directions are preferred for relation roles of one-way route segments (e.g. one-way pairs or divided highways), but what about clockwise and counterclockwise? Often beltways, like D.C.'s Capital Beltway, are signed such that they abruptly go from north/south to east/west, but then you have routes like Pittsburgh's Belt System, where the Belts aren't signed with directions at all. These seem to be given "CW" (clockwise) and "CCW" (counterclockwise) roles. Is this correct, or does "forward" or some other role need to be used?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us