[OSM-talk] Removing redundant routing instructions

Lester Caine lester at lsces.co.uk
Mon Apr 27 10:06:56 UTC 2015


On 27/04/15 10:45, phil at trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
>> == 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.

Why do I find that confusing?

Currently in general the directions ignore corners even if there are
roads going off those corners. The complaint is about 'extra' directions
where the corner is actually the main road and the straight on branch is
the turning. If the directions remain silent one would in some
conditions get confused so the safe thing to do is announce both?

The correct wording of the the directions should be perhaps 'road bares
right' and 'go straight on' rather than 'turn right' but that does need
the perhaps missing "through_route" information? As I said, the
inclusion of road names in OSMAND while useful at times does get
similarly annoying when a 'continue on Axxx' would suffice. In this case
the road id provides the "through_route" information ... one remains on
the same road ... and the straight on road has a different one which may
just be 'minor road'.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk



More information about the talk mailing list