[OSM-talk] Next: Relation name (WAS: Removing redundant routing instructions)
rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com
Mon Apr 27 20:31:11 UTC 2015
Ok a few people are agreeing that a relation is needed to assist the
routing engine to provide higher quality instructions (with routing left
unaffected). That's good.
I'd like to get something in the wiki and ideally get it approved (this is
not an invite to talk about the wiki or the approval process - I've heard
it all before).
Question: Should I revive the "through_route" proposal or start a new one
under a different name, say "route_continues" (or just "continues") so as
to avoid any ambiguity with the use of "through route" in general language?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk