Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use priority for most common/used name ref #77

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

freenerd
Copy link
Member

@freenerd freenerd commented Nov 14, 2016

Fixes #30

Still very experimental, but wanted to get the PR sooner than later for visiblity.

Todo:

  • Integrate prototype into osrm-frontend to see it first-hand
  • Make implementation airtight
  • Write good extended tests for all cases

@freenerd
Copy link
Member Author

freenerd commented Nov 15, 2016

I integrated this hacky-ish into osrm-frontend. Results so far are promising, see details below

left is new, right is old

route

This one is interesting since the last part is both on US 29 and US 50, but we prefer US 50 (and don't switch between them within a part anymore, as before)

2016-11-15 at 18 35

route

We might want to give ref a boost over name, at least in the beginning CA 210 might have been a better choice.

2016-11-15 at 18 55

route

2016-11-15 at 18 58

route

2016-11-15 at 19 00

res = collect.reduce(function(a, b) {
return (a.score > b.score) ? a : b;
}, { score: 0 });
console.log(collect, res);

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

remove console

@1ec5
Copy link
Member

1ec5 commented Nov 15, 2016

The big pitfall to this approach of omitting the road names along the route is that route markers for surface streets are often infrequent (especially in rural areas in the U.S.) or poorly maintained (especially in urban areas in the U.S.). This is often true of U.S. Routes but increasingly the case as you go down to the state, county, and township level. A driver consuming turn-by-turn guidance for an exurban/suburban route like this would benefit far more from instructions like:

Turn right on Paxton Avenue to stay on SR 48

when they’re already on SR 48 than:

Turn right on SR 48

Similarly, I’m confident that if you merged this PR, this route would be much less usable (except for any real-time distances coming from the application).

Except on the most important long-distance routes, surface streets are primarily signposted by their names, not their route numbers. Bannered routes (I-395 Alternate, US 50 Truck, US 40 Scenic) shouldn’t be prioritized over street names or unbannered routes, either.

I would suggest limiting this simplification to just continue and name-change steps. For turns and other maneuver types, I think we should ultimately implement #41, but the current behavior on master would be preferable to this PR. Alternatively, this library could treat freeways and expressways differently than surface streets, as described in #51 (comment).

@freenerd
Copy link
Member Author

freenerd commented Jul 5, 2017

To avoid above problems, we might want to keep the current decisions between name and destination, but at least choose for either the most common. That would solve the I-80 problem described in #30

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants