Talk:Exit Info
The wiki page describes how to handle split exits properly - which were not handled correctly in the US
Entrances
Does this tagging apply to entrances too? E.g. from a tertiary road onto a motorway, where there is a sign directing drivers to the motorway? --ElliottPlack (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes - I will try to add some examples --Duaneg (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
iD example: ramp onto PA 283 East toward Lancaster
iD example: ramp onto PA 283 West toward Airport;Harrisburg
--Duaneg (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Minor divergences at the end of the ramp (motorway link)
When the exit ramp diverges at the end, would the way tagging apply to both branches? Would this qualify for street:to tagging on the upstream motorway_link?
--ElliottPlack (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a picture of signage at the ramp split?
Typically one ramp would have destination=Butler and the other ramp would have destination=Sparks
--Duaneg (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
motorway_junction
Isn't the tag highway=motorway_junction the defacto way of tagging highway exits? You should present this page to the tagging mailing list, if you are not doing so already. --Jgpacker (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies, I was focusing on the sign information - absolutely, the tag highway=motorway_junction on the node is used to identify exits. I updated the examples to have highway=motorway_junction --Duaneg (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
:to
I'm not convinced of the :to extension.
| key | value |
|---|---|
| destination | <toward location> |
| destination:ref (proposed) | <branch route number> |
| destination:ref:to (proposed) | <toward route number> |
| destination:street (proposed) | <branch road name> |
| destination:street:to (proposed) | <toward road name> |
There is a mixing of semantics here - "destination" is "toward" but "destination:ref" should only be "branch route number". This seems to be against Proposed_features/Destination_details#destination:ref where is states The key destination:ref=* should be used to specify the reference of the roads ahead. What exactly is "<branch route number>"?--Jojo4u (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think I see what happened up there. The page does specify what that means lower in the page: '<branch route number>: The route number that the exit/ramp/slip road will branch onto', and '<toward route number>: The route number that the exit/ramp/slip road will head toward'. I personally agree that the wording is awkward, but the principle is sound. In the United States, it is fairly common for motorway guidance signs to show 'the reference of the road you are exiting to' as well as 'a major nearby road that road also leads to'. In the image below...
- For exit 51B, the destination:ref is 'I 81 North'. The slip road connects directly to Interstate 81 North. The destination:ref:to is 'I 78'. The slip road does not connect directly to Interstate 78 at all, but the symbol and "TO" is provided as a guidance to the driver, and will be seen by the driver on the destination sign. There is probably a better word than 'branch' to use there, but the use is sensible. Skybunny (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Split exit refs
"A/B Split Example" suggests tagging ref=51A-B on the highway=motorway_junction node. This could be confusing, because an exit number in another country may include a hyphen. Instead, we should delimit multiple values according to OSM convention: ref=51A;51B. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 17:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- We should also mention the ref:left=51A & ref:right=51B option on the front page for the highway=motorway_junction node. That will allow router to know properly which exit number goes to which ramp. See: Proposed features/motorway junction Extension -- rickmastfan67 (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- If the notion ref=51A-B is unique to OSM I also propose to use semicolons.--Jojo4u (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Simpler Exits
This page is really helpful for complicated exits but when dealing with a much simpler exit where the sign only states the destination street, would it be better to put the name of the street in the destination tag? Zian (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- If the the ramp connects directly to the street then is should tagged using destination:street --Duaneg (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'd argue that for motorway exits whose total sign indication is 'Main Street ->' that 'Main Street' should be tagged on both 'destination' and 'destination:street', or failing that - if only on one - then just on 'destination'. Routing software won't know that it should look for one above another, and an exit's indicated 'street' destination may not match the street that it actually connects with. This is a fairly common occurrence. Skybunny (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- In most urban areas in the U.S., guide signage states the street before or instead of a destination. For example, 30735517
30735517 is tagged destination=2nd Street;Downtown;Riverfront rather than destination=Downtown;Riverfront destination:street=2nd Street. The latter would cause routers such as OSRM to say just "Downtown;Riverfront", omitting the more important "2nd Street". destination:street=* is more appropriate for the sort of signage shown in this article: some states display a road name beside the shield in smaller text. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- The interchange information should be properly categorized similar to how addr=* information is stored in the proper sub key. For an address, you would not assign the street name to the city subkey. The same applies to interchange information. Also, when categorized correctly, routers can produce accurate guidance to help users. I added a simple road name example. --Duaneg (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- By this reasoning, we should also have destination:city=*, destination:suburb=*, destination:neighbourhood=*, and destination:attraction=*. And that doesn't address the question of how to specify that a street should be placed before a city or an attraction before a neighborhood in a list. This is crucial for accurate guidance. By the addr analogy, there would still need to be a destination:full=* by analogy with addr:full=*, since the order varies even more than address formats (sometimes from one exit to another on the same road). Finally, I would caution against making too many assumptions about what's in addr:street=*: for example, "take the exit onto Street1, Street2" may ignore the fact that the ramp leads to a third street towards Street1 and Street2, perhaps a frontage road or some other configuration. Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 15:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Apologies for the confusion - I am not suggesting to complicate the tagging. The destination:street=* and destination:street:to=* are subkeys that capture the interchange street name sign values just as the corresponding destination:ref=* and destination:ref:to=* capture the interchange ref sign values. If the interchange information is logically categorized as described in the Exit Info wiki then routers can provide quality guidance through simple and complex interchanges. Valhalla from Mapzen is the only router on OpenStreetMap that properly calls out the exit information. I suggest submitting an issue to OSRM to handle destination:street, et al since they have recently started to work on adding the exit sign information. --Duaneg (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)