Re: [Tagging] Reliable OSM routing

On 2/9/14 3:11 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: > > Some very good points here. . . > > > On Feb 9, 2014, at 10:47 AM, André Pirard wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I left this unsent for some time, so it may duplicate what has already been >> said. >> But it's uttermost important. >> >> >> There doesn't seem to be rou

Re: [Tagging] Reliable OSM routing (was: How to tag an imaginary oneway barrier)

Some very good points here. . . On Feb 9, 2014, at 10:47 AM, André Pirard wrote: > Hi, > > I left this unsent for some time, so it may duplicate what has already been > said. > But it's uttermost important. > > > There doesn't seem to be routing quality assurance tools, not even Osmose >

[Tagging] Reliable OSM routing (was: How to tag an imaginary oneway barrier)

Hi, I left this unsent for some time, so it may duplicate what has already been said. But it's uttermost important. On 2014-02-05 07:44, Kytömaa Lauri wrote : Bryce Nesbitt wrote: does not represent what's on the gro

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an imaginary oneway barrier

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Pee Wee wrote: > This then means that tagging a traffic_sign:forward=* on a node that is part > of a way is also more then arguable. A node by itself has no direction. And a node can belong to more than one way. I don't like this solution. Pieren ___

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an imaginary oneway barrier

Am 09.02.2014 um 14:01 schrieb Pee Wee : > This then means that tagging a traffic_sign:forward=* on a node that is part > of a way is also more then arguable. We'll have to keep on searching for > better ways to map traffic signs. Maybe the Finnish style is not so bad after > all ;-) +1, th

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an imaginary oneway barrier

Thanks Martin This then means that tagging a traffic_sign:forward=* on a node that is part of a way is also more then arguable. We'll have to keep on searching for better ways to map traffic signs. Maybe the Finnish style