[OSM-talk] Next: Relation name (WAS: Removing redundant routing instructions)
lester at lsces.co.uk
Tue Apr 28 15:05:27 UTC 2015
On 28/04/15 15:15, Steve Doerr wrote:
>> Reading the objections on
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/through_route and
>> to be honest, the example used is simply wrong.
> How about this one: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/21745867? Contrary
> to rational expectations, the 'through route' here is Groombridge Hill
> <-> Langton Road, and Ashurst Road has give-way lines.
It's not an unusual occurrence. Tagging Langton Road as through_route =
Groombridge Hill would override the natural flow. Tag Ashurst Road as
through_route = Langton Road gives that a higher priority than the
'A264' reference, and finally Groombridge Hill gets through_route =
Langton Road as well. Although I could accept not tagging that since it
is 'natural' once the A264 is ignored.
throws up a few more points.
My point is that this is not a 'relation' problem, but rather that the
through_route tag was getting mixed up with traffic management tagging.
If you take out all the objections due to junction priority rules and
properly document that area of tagging, one is left with only the cases
that are missing a link through a junction? With the correct 'give way'
tagged on the above junction, again the A264 'priority' is reduced but
only if there is no matching restriction on Groombridge Hill?
This does of cause create the need for a better micro-mapped junction
layout since the highway=give_way tag needs to be a short distance down
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285608726 and the routing software
needs to understand the whole area of the junction rather than just the
the common node.
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