Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles: Clockwise and Counterclockwise route directions? (e.g. Pittsburgh's Belts)
Not sure about the beltway example, but I prefer having one relation for each direction of a highway and then a super relation to tie those two together. That avoids the issues you pointed out earlier where one direction may take a slip/link while the other direction does not. It also makes it easy to see, at least in JOSM relation editing, that all the segments link up properly. And finally, though probably not as important, allows one to mark each segment in the relation with “forward” which is universally understood by the whole tool chain while many have issues with members marked as “north”, “south”, etc. I suppose one could handle the beltway example with a CW relation and a CCW relation, with all members being tagged as “forward”, and then a super relation to tie those to together. Signage with stuff like north/south on them could be handled with destination sign tagging. > On Dec 26, 2016, at 1:41 PM, Albert Pundt wrote: > > I know that north/south/east/west directions are preferred for relation roles > of one-way route segments (e.g. one-way pairs or divided highways), but what > about clockwise and counterclockwise? Often beltways, like D.C.'s Capital > Beltway, are signed such that they abruptly go from north/south to east/west, > but then you have routes like Pittsburgh's Belt System, where the Belts > aren't signed with directions at all. These seem to be given "CW" (clockwise) > and "CCW" (counterclockwise) roles. Is this correct, or does "forward" or > some other role need to be used? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Relation roles: Clockwise and Counterclockwise route directions? (e.g. Pittsburgh's Belts)
I know that north/south/east/west directions are preferred for relation roles of one-way route segments (e.g. one-way pairs or divided highways), but what about clockwise and counterclockwise? Often beltways, like D.C.'s Capital Beltway, are signed such that they abruptly go from north/south to east/west, but then you have routes like Pittsburgh's Belt System, where the Belts aren't signed with directions at all. These seem to be given "CW" (clockwise) and "CCW" (counterclockwise) roles. Is this correct, or does "forward" or some other role need to be used? --Roadsguy___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Relation roles for two-way way segments carrying routes in a single direction
So I understand that one-way ways carrying a route (e.g. a one-way pair or divided highway) should have relation roles of north/south/east/west, but say you have a situation like this. Say you have an east-west route that follows the primary roads in that picture. The eastbound direction follows the channelized right turn slip ramp, marked with a red arrow. The westbound direction follows the blue-arrow way, before turning left onto the green-arrow way. How should relation memberships and roles be assigned here? I would think that the slip ramp would be part of the relation, since right-turning traffic must follow it. Ideally, that would be given the role "east", but what about the green and blue ways? It might seem right to give them the role "west", but how then is it differentiated which direction is westbound for it? Since all the ways in this picture are arranged "pointing" north or east, the green and blue ways would need to be given the role "backward", which is the older way of doing things that can't specify cardinal direction. Is replacing the single relation with separate relations for each direction the only good way to do this, or are such two-way segments the only times that "forward" and "backward" roles should be used? I checked the wiki page, but it doesn't seem to specify. Instead, it just says such cases are very rare (which is only true relatively speaking, as routes very commonly turn at intersections with channelized right turns, making situations like the linked example very common. --Roadsguy___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
