On 28/04/15 17:14, pmailkeey . wrote:
>
> My point is that this is not a 'relation' problem, but rather that the
> through_route tag was getting mixed up with traffic management tagging.
>
> Is there need for a through route tag as well as the give way tag ?
Yes ... The give way/stop i
Look at either of the examples in the through_route proposal page. If
you are driving from bottom to top, you approach a Y-junction where two
roads diverge. Whether there is a give-way sign coming in the opposite
direction is not sufficient to understand which branch of the Y is the
"through rou
On 28 April 2015 at 16:25, Colin Smale wrote:
> The "give way" sign won't help to distinguish between the arms where two
> roads diverge...
>
You mean neither has give way markings ? Can you provide an example ? It's
sounding a bit like Russia !
> By the way, the sign is often a STOP sign, so
On 28 April 2015 at 16:05, Lester Caine wrote:
>
> My point is that this is not a 'relation' problem, but rather that the
> through_route tag was getting mixed up with traffic management tagging.
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
>
Is there need for a through route tag as well as the give way tag ?
The "give way" sign won't help to distinguish between the arms where two
roads diverge...
By the way, the sign is often a STOP sign, so the logic will have to
check for both.
//colin
On 2015-04-28 17:09, pmailkeey . wrote:
> On 28 April 2015 at 13:15, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> It's about
On 28 April 2015 at 13:15, Colin Smale wrote:
> It's about that which cannot be inferred from the geometry and the
> current tagging. The road name and number come under "current tagging", but
> sometimes they are not enough to know how to describe the next
> instruction(s) to the user. We are i
On 28/04/15 15:15, Steve Doerr wrote:
>
>> Reading the objections on
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/through_route and
>> to be honest, the example used is simply wrong.
>
> How about this one: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/21745867? Contrary
> to rational expectations
On 28/04/2015 13:23, Lester Caine wrote:
Reading the objections on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/through_route and
to be honest, the example used is simply wrong.
How about this one: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/21745867? Contrary
to rational expectations, the 'th
> Am 28.04.2015 um 13:47 schrieb pmailkeey . :
>
> Road number
> Road name
> The lack of crossing white paint into/out of a 'side road' , or
> Direction of travel
I believe it's mainly about what appears to be road continuity (road markings).
In Germany the traffic sign is this one:
http:/
On 27/04/15 21:31, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Ok a few people are agreeing that a relation is needed to assist the
> routing engine to provide higher quality instructions (with routing left
> unaffected). That's good.
>
> I'd like to get something in the wiki and ideally get it approved (this
> is not
It's about that which cannot be inferred from the geometry and the
current tagging. The road name and number come under "current tagging",
but sometimes they are not enough to know how to describe the next
instruction(s) to the user. We are in the business of dictating the
exact text that a navi
On 28 April 2015 at 11:05, Colin Smale wrote:
> The existing through_route proposal may not be perfect but IMHO is a
> good base. It will need weeding through to keep it on-topic.
>
> This is how I see the scope of the discussion (just to get the ball
> rolling, feel free to shoot):
>
> 1) it ha
On 28 April 2015 at 08:21, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Please refer to my first email to the list (removing redundant routing
> instructions). Do you know how to view the mailing list archive online?
>
> Rob
>
Yes thanks - I viewed archive stuff before posting - and in any case I've
got the thread as
The existing through_route proposal may not be perfect but IMHO is a
good base. It will need weeding through to keep it on-topic.
This is how I see the scope of the discussion (just to get the ball
rolling, feel free to shoot):
1) it has to be about junctions, not about individual ways (it's
14 matches
Mail list logo
