On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Dylan Semler <[email protected]> wrote:
- On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:57 AM, andrzej zaborowski <[email protected]> wrote:
- On 11 July 2010 10:23, Maarten Deen <[email protected]> wrote:
- > If you have a layout like this (use a fixed-width font):
- >
- > | |
- > A----+-+
- > | +----B
- > C----+-+
- > | |
- >
- > And you want to go from B to A, why would routing software say "go straight
- > on" and not "go right, then go left"?
- My opinion is that it is a routing software issue after all...
- >
- > And option is to map it like this:
- > | |
- > A----+ |
- > |\|
- > | +----B
- > |/|
- > C----+ |
- > | |
How about grouping all of the nodes of the intersection into a relation? Routing software can treat it as a single intersection and the map can reflect how the roads are actually laid.
Actually, I see there already is a proposed feature to use relations to handle routing instructions for complicated turns[1]
[1]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Turn_hints
But these are not "complicated intersections" - they are quite common perpendicular intersections of two roads, and mappers have drawn them in all possible ways. I don't think it's reasonable to ask mappers to have to jump through yet another hoop to map something so common - they simply aren't going to do it.
I spend a totally unreasonable amount of time mapping turn restrictions (mostly no-u-turn) as it is, and even that is hard to justify.
Alan Mintz <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
