[OSM-talk] Removing redundant routing instructions

Steve Doerr doerr.stephen at gmail.com
Mon Apr 27 09:00:19 UTC 2015

As I understand it, there is an implied direction in that the convention 
is that the give_way node applies to the nearest intersection involving 
the way. But yes, I can see that involves extra computation.


On 27/04/2015 09:51, Colin Smale wrote:
> The trouble with nodes is that they are non-directional. Junctions in 
> quick succession, and lane-dependent give-ways could make a 
> challenging scenario for a program to try and make sense of. Why not 
> tag it explicitly instead of leaving it to heuristics which (by 
> definition) will not always get it right?
> //colin
> On 2015-04-27 10:06, Steve Doerr wrote:
>> On 26/04/2015 12:35, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>>> 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.
>> One simple way of representing this situation is to place give_way nodes on the subsidiary roads. Whether any routers or renderers make use of these to deduce that a particular route through the junction is the 'through route', I don't know.
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20150427/bf6a532b/attachment.html>

More information about the talk mailing list