You are correct, we are talking about unclassified and tertiary roads.
Although this problem also occurs on secondary, primary and trunk roads,
a classification is a measure of importance and not always quality. But
where did the turning lane come from? or even lanes in many cases?
Here is an
On 18/06/2013 16:45, News wrote:
You are correct, we are talking about unclassified and tertiary roads.
Although this problem also occurs on secondary, primary and trunk roads,
a classification is a measure of importance and not always quality. But
where did the turning lane come from? or
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 16:50 +0100, Steve Doerr wrote:
On 18/06/2013 16:45, News wrote:
You are correct, we are talking about unclassified and tertiary roads.
Although this problem also occurs on secondary, primary and trunk roads,
a classification is a measure of importance and not
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 16:45 +0100, News wrote:
You are correct, we are talking about unclassified and tertiary roads.
Although this problem also occurs on secondary, primary and trunk roads,
a classification is a measure of importance and not always quality. But
where did the turning
For my Garmin both B5065 examples are routed correct by Mapsource. If the
OSRM heuristics are wrong, than OSRM should get a ticket to make its engine
better.
Cheers, Johan
2013/6/18 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 16:45 +0100, News wrote:
You are correct, we are
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 19:23 +0200, Johan C wrote:
For my Garmin both B5065 examples are routed correct by Mapsource. If
the OSRM heuristics are wrong, than OSRM should get a ticket to make
its engine better.
That is just one of many examples, does this one work?
http://osrm.at/3Is
No, it doesn't. Two reasons for that:
1. the road names in your example are wrong, see:
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/viewer/ . If the correct
road names are applied, the routing engine will know that one road is
connected through an interchange to another road
2. it's
On 16.06.2013 22:50, Rob Nickerson wrote:
@Rob:
Did you ever try to describe the junction with the Lane and Road
Attributes?
No, I didn't. And as I've been busy with organising SOTM I didn't even
fully read the tag proposal (hence I didn't vote). I hope you agree that
my general comment about
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 17:35 +0200, fly wrote:
On 16.06.2013 22:50, Rob Nickerson wrote:
@Rob:
Did you ever try to describe the junction with the Lane and Road
Attributes?
No, I didn't. And as I've been busy with organising SOTM I didn't even
fully read the tag proposal (hence I didn't
@Rob:
Did you ever try to describe the junction with the Lane and Road
Attributes?
No, I didn't. And as I've been busy with organising SOTM I didn't even
fully read the tag proposal (hence I didn't vote). I hope you agree that my
general comment about reading through and attempting to address the
Hi,
The next steps with any tag proposal that reaches a hung jury is to read
through the comments and update the proposal to address the issues raised.
In this case I think the wiki page needs to be clearer about what this tag
is for (a few photo/aerial image examples would help), and how it
Hi Rob,
Am Samstag, 15. Juni 2013, 13:33:24 schrieb Rob Nickerson:
The next steps with any tag proposal that reaches a hung jury is to read
through the comments and update the proposal to address the issues raised.
In this case I think the wiki page needs to be clearer about what this tag
On 15.06.2013 17:00, Eckhart Wörner wrote:
Hi Rob,
Am Samstag, 15. Juni 2013, 13:33:24 schrieb Rob Nickerson:
The next steps with any tag proposal that reaches a hung jury is to read
through the comments and update the proposal to address the issues raised.
In this case I think the wiki
13 matches
Mail list logo
