I'm still confused as to why the consumers of a relation can't use the forward/backward roles of the ways referenced therein rather than requiring completely separate relations. Why do we need two or more relations plus a super relation per road route even for undivided highways? Even for a somewhat experienced mapper like myself, it makes the editing process that much more error prone.
-Nathan Chris Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote: >On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> Not a fan. It greatly complicates things for information that can >either >> be gleaned obviously or is a "nice to have." Having 3+ relations for >> something that isn't fully divided just complicates things, with the >> exception edge case of a relation that starts or ends on a divided >highway. >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 9:30 AM, James Mast ><[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I'm just curious, but what's everybody's opinion on this? I know >it's >>> acceptable for the Interstates (some are setup this way, some >aren't) since >>> they are all divided, but what about for US Highways and State >Highways? I >>> know that we want to eventually have the cardinal directions in OSM >for the >>> routers so they can properly tell people which direction the of the >highway >>> they need to turn onto (like turn left onto Westbound US-30). >>> .... >>> Also, on a side note, do you guys think we should remove the >"symbol" >>> tags in the relations from all the Interstates/US highways they show >up in >>> at the same time? >>> >>> So, let's get this discussion going! >>> >> >IMO direction-based relations, with correct forward/backward tagging, >are >borderline necessary for directions based on relations to work >correctly in >the US and Canada. That's something that's sorely lacking (along with >exit >numbers and usage of "destination" tags) in OSRM today. > >All we should need is a single super relation for each route, along >with >reasonable numbers of directional relations with way members - since >each >directional relation will have 1/2ish the number of members, there's no >reason to confine them to one per state unless we're doing that to >match up >with Wikipedia articles. > >As for symbol tags, I'd vote to transition them to the wiki:symbol >namespace if possible. > > >Chris >-- >Chris Lawrence <[email protected]> > >Website: http://www.cnlawrence.com/ > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Talk-us mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
