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 not
about warning of sharp bends in a continuous road)
2) it has to be about aspects which cannot (reliably) be derived from
the geometry alone (see point 1 above)
3) it must cover factors which affect the way the route to be driven is
explained to the user ("keep left" vs. "take the exit", "follow the road
to the right" vs. "turn right" etc etc)
4) it *may* cover factors which affect the way the router chooses its
optimum route (e.g. time penalties for a "give way")
//colin
On 2015-04-27 22:31, 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 an invite to talk about the wiki or the approval process - I've heard it
> all before).
>
> Question: Should I revive the "through_route" proposal or start a new one
> under a different name, say "route_continues" (or just "continues") so as to
> avoid any ambiguity with the use of "through route" in general language?
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [1]
Links:
------
[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
