[OSM-talk] Removing redundant routing instructions

Colin Smale colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Mon Apr 27 14:30:41 UTC 2015


Won't work in the UK as there are plenty of cases where you have to give
way and make a proper turn in order to stay on the same road name and/or
ref. The concept even has a name - TOTSO which means "Turn Off To Stay


You cannot reliably infer from the geometry and name/ref which road (or
lanes) has to give way. The only way to improve the navigation
instructions is by giving hints. 

This is not a routing question - nobody here is discussing which road is
the best way to MyTown - it's about how you present the router's choices
to the user. 


On 2015-04-27 16:07, Marc Gemis wrote: 

> As long as the name (or the ref/int_ref) of the street remains the same, I think the router should be able to give other messages than "turn right". There is no need for an additional relation IMHO. 
> m 
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Lester Caine <lester at lsces.co.uk> wrote:
>> 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 [1]
>> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk [2]
>> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ [3]
>> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk [4]
>> Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk [5]
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [6]
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [6]

[1] http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
[2] http://lsces.co.uk
[3] http://enquirysolve.com/
[4] http://medw.co.uk
[5] http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
[6] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20150427/e0a20a0e/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the talk mailing list