[OSM-talk] Removing redundant routing instructions

phil at trigpoint.me.uk phil at trigpoint.me.uk
Mon Apr 27 09:45:05 UTC 2015


On Sun Apr 26 12:35:57 2015 GMT+0100, 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 [1] 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?
> 
And more importantly,  if you need to turn off onto the minor road going straight ahead it remains 'silent'.

I have occasionally used a through_route relation in these cases, but lack of support from routers does make it seem futile. 

Much like the via way relation,  that one is so needed too.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Jolla


More information about the talk mailing list