[OSM-talk] Removing redundant routing instructions
rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com
Sun Apr 26 13:26:48 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.
Yeah I'm aware of that. In fact my example has been sat on my computer
since that proposal and I've only just got back to looking at it!!
This is in effect a revival of that proposal with a quite different
example. I picked a different name as Through Route has a meaning in the UK
- it means a route that takes you past a town whilst avoiding the congested
city centre. If you think we should revive the through_route proposal then
I'm happy with that instead.
I'm not sure I get your point about "hint for router" versus "aid for
navigation". I suspect this may stem from the don't tag for the renderer
rule. If we look at the end use case the aim is to get a routing engine
that provides an optimal route with user friendly route instructions. I
can't believe this is an easy tag and as such I would expect the routing
developers to be raising issues they cannot solve via code alone. This is
one area where I would like my SatNav not to spew redundant instructions.
p.s. Is highway=motorway_junction a "hint for router" or an "aid for
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk