Hi ael, The routing is not wrong - a shared node implies connectedness. If a bridge crosses a road as in the situation you describe there should not be a node. Looks like you need to do a bit of correcting... ;-)
If JOSM is misleading it should be flagged to the JOSM devs - I'll forward this onto the dev list. Cheers, On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 10:33 PM, ael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > H.S.Rai wrote: > > To make one's data of good quality, do check data for routing from > > website http://www.yournavigation.org/ > > This raises an embarrassingly simple question: if two ways share a node, > does that imply that one can travel from one to the other? > > Example: a minor road crosses a major road on a bridge. I normally have > a shared node in the centre of the bridge. With the layers set properly. > > But trying your router at www.yournavigation.org, it produces an > impossible route "jumping off the bridge". > > I was led into the habit of including a common node by the josm > validator which used to object to "ways crossing": that is without the > shared node. I have just done a quick search on the wiki to see whether > the semantics is specified there, but couldn't find anything. My > suspicion is that a shared node implies navigability, but it does not > seem to be stated clearly. And the the josm validator is at best > misleading? Or is the router wrong? > > ael > > _______________________________________________ > newbies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies > -- Nick Black -------------------------------- http://www.blacksworld.net
_______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
