[OSM-talk] Next: Relation name (WAS: Removing redundant routing instructions)

pmailkeey . pmailkeey at googlemail.com
Tue Apr 28 11:47:05 UTC 2015


On 28 April 2015 at 11:05, Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl> wrote:

>  The existing through_route proposal may not be perfect but IMHO is a
> good base. It will need weeding through to keep it on-topic.
>
> This is how I see the scope of the discussion (just to get the ball
> rolling, feel free to shoot):
>
> 1) it has to be about junctions, not about individual ways (it's not about
> warning of sharp bends in a continuous road)
>
> 2) it has to be about aspects which cannot (reliably) be derived from the
> geometry alone (see point 1 above)
>
> 3) it must cover factors which affect the way the route to be driven is
> explained to the user ("keep left" vs. "take the exit", "follow the road to
> the right" vs. "turn right" etc etc)
>
> 4) it *may* cover factors which affect the way the router chooses its
> optimum route (e.g. time penalties for a "give way")
>
> //colin
>
>
>
Is a 'through route' a continuation of

   - Road number
   - Road name
   - The lack of crossing white paint into/out of a 'side road' , or
   - Direction of travel

I'm concerned about ambiguity arising out of potential different
interpretations.

I'm sure we will be able to find examples of all combinations of all of the
above!


-- 
Mike.
@millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> -
For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via *the area's premier website - *

*currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property
& pets*

T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20150428/fb3db135/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list