On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Jon Bright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> signpost=Dortmund, Münster
I assume the intention was that the routing program outputs some instruction like 'Take the Dortmund exit' / 'Take the road makered Dortmund' > I don't really follow how "signpost" is motorcar or motorway-specific or > why you couldn't add free-form strings there. The numbers variant is My idea is to allow extremely varied instructions including "Open the gate on the left that appears to be locked, but isn't". We don't want the software to change it to "Take the Open the gate on the left that appears to be locked, but isn't exit" > I don't mind adding relations, but looking ahead for signpost messages > is a bad plan, imho. The most complicated tagging I see is something like <relation> to=id type=way via=id type=node // Redundant ? from=id type=way warn1=id type=node message='Keep right' warn2=id type=node message='Take the middle lane' warn3=id type=node message='Keep left' The thing is that the routing program will need to know what the ultimate destination is, which intermediate ways it has chosen and from that determine what instructions to provide to the user. Examining the intermediate ways to determine which relations are active is what I describe as looking ahead. >> Wuppertal can be tagged with "At the Acme junction, take the middle >> lane for the exit marked 'Wuppertal'". For messages fitting a certain >> layout, we can have machine translation into other languages e.g. >> using 'sed'. > > If you're manually tagging, you're never going to get people to follow > layouts strict enough to be sed-translateable. I guess you're right. _______________________________________________ Routing mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/routing
