[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