[OSM-talk] Removing redundant routing instructions
colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Sun Apr 26 11:50:58 UTC 2015
There already is a "through_route" relation, to show the path of the
through route. It might not be well documented, but it is used (I
There was a proposal, which was eventually rejected:
IMHO it was rejected as it was seen as a hint for the router, not as an
aid to navigation, and people don't understand the difference.
On 2015-04-26 13:35, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Hi all,
> In the UK (particularly in rural areas) it is common to find a road that turns 90 degrees to the left or right without a junction (that is the road just continues and white lines mark it as such). Meanwhile another road may come in from the other side with a 'give way' style junction.
> Although the road continues round the bend "SatNav" systems often think it is a junction and tell you to "turn right/left in 100 yards/meters".
> I wonder whether it is possible to indicate this in OpenStreetMap so that routing engines can omit this redundant instruction.
> == Example picture ==
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6J5ZA1hu93bZmx2NTIxaHdfMUE/view?usp=sharing 
> In the example Oban Road  turns to the right to become the northern section of Sydnall Road. All main routers tell you to turn right. In my opinion this is a redundant instruction (or could be better worded). I've tried to add extra nodes so that the road naturally bends but the main routing engines still tell you to "turn".
> == Question ==
> Could we benefit from a new route relation? For example a "route_continues" relation? Would others find this useful?
>  http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=52.45362%2C-1.48598%3B52.45341%2C-1.48944#map=18/52.45332/-1.48771&layers=Q 
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk