[RfC] Mapping grade-separated junctions.

In order to de-escalate tensions between mappers of Greece, I would like to come to an agreement on how we classify grade-separated junctions, including motorway junctions: I understand the situation that we are in, and we know that we need to fix that without trading accusations and insults.

This RfC does not apply to level junctions.

Revisions are in blue.

A. Classification

There is currently two competing ways of mapping junctions:

  1. The first method, or the proportional method, is to roughly share the links between two connection types: like this.
  2. The second way, or the strict method, is to extend the highest classification to cover all links where there is no “escape”, like this.

I understand that there is a lot of inconsistency on how the highway authorities place the signs marking the start and end of motorway, and is why there is a lot of confusion.

In my opinion, I prefer to use the highest classification for links where there is no “escape”, up to the point where a road of a lower classification crosses, joins, or leaves the second (strict) option, because I do not want the map to trick prohibited types of traffic (e.g. pedestrians, cyclists and horse-drawn vehicles) into areas where they should not be.

Where any part of the motorway junction contains a pedestrian crossing, the concern about pedestrians not being able to use them can be resolved by adding foot=yes and sidewalk=left/right/both/none to the sections where pedestrians need to use to access the crossing.

Roundabouts are not mapped as links.

B. Junction Numbers on links

I offer to removed the “Είσοδος”, “Έξοδος” and “Κόμβος” name tags, in exchange for a joint effort to and asked pressure JOSM to recognise the junction:ref=* tags when editing the road relations.

The suggestion for promoting junction:ref=* for junction numbers on slip roads stems from the fact that iD recognises it. Nope, I did not make that one up.

In respect of “junction:ref”, I support the use of that tag as it will identify members of a junction without conflicting with the road numbers.

In the case of interchanges between two motorways, the format will be junction:ref=[exit]/[entry], e.g. junction:ref=15/8 when changing from the A1 to the A6 at Metamorfosi.

C. Links in relations

I support including slip roads in road relations, because the scheme allows road relations to include slips roads under the role “link”.

In the case of interchanges between two motorways, the slip roads are members of both relations.

Extra: Another reason for including links in the relations (under the appropriate role, of course) is that the relation would have more details, and therefore provide complete information about the road.


This is not yet a poll, to allow for comments and suggestions.

A. i personally use motorway links, up to the point they diverge to connect with local roads, if the motorway links diverge to non separated 2 lane road i use the class of the connecting road and name it “Συνδετήρια Οδός”

B. i think the best is not to have names or refs on links, just ref on the junction node and destination on the way (unless its more complicated like A6/A8 and A8/A7)

C. i believe relation links are wrong for so many reasons (also using the main motorway ref and name is so wrong)

I hope not to be over stepping my bounds here but I think it might be valuable to have an outside perspective, and I have contributed to the Greek map in several areas.

A. I agree with Ika-chan! on the strict link interpretation. It leaves less ambiguity in the map and clearly identifies the highest function of a slip roads.

B. On this one I agree with JayCBR the typical method the world over is to remove ref and name tags from links and have these keys replaced with the destination:ref=* tag, destination=* tag, destination:street=* tag, destination:to=* tag, etc…

C. I am unsure on this one. Links are definitively used in relations in many cases to designate routes and such. I am unsure as to what the dispute is here so I will refrain from adding my opinion here for now.


Part C is not strictly a dispute, but something that has never been standardised.

the previous example about A is not very good, i m talking about spots like this https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/38.05573/23.74662, you cant say this is still a motorway link after meeting all these local roads

also here https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/38.05487/23.74583 i believe the final branches should be secondary links, you cant possible believe they are still motorway links when you have to stop and wait

i also just noticed this mess with Έξοδος 14…ika-chan! i like that you follow community consensus…we have talked about this a million times…you just do what you like and you leave a comment about a proposed feature you told nobody about

That was Kaart and not me, and I did complain to Kaart about it, and I thought we were not going back to trading accusations.

1.We must consider the “thinking” of how each highway was made by the contractor. For example, here there is a road (bridge) that connects A1 with Athinon (Avenue). Although in fact it was made to connect a motorway with a primary, it is described as secondary.
2.Roundabouts should be describe as links?
@Te-Ika: About destination tag: Which places should be placed? Should we prefer names of places or names of highways?

ika-chan! i checked several of these and you are the last person that edited them, so you saw them and didnt do anything?

i dont care who s fault is it, i dont want to see things like these

you are “fixing” things you think are unacceptable and do not make sense, well i feel the same about refs and names of the main motorway on links (that go together with the relation)

roundabouts are not links

destinations are the one from the signs (preferably cities etc)

Destinations cannot be named (only) from sings.
The best example, is on A1, EXIT 21.
On signs is written “ΑΓΙΟΣ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΣ”. On the official site of “ΝΕΑ ΟΔΟΣ” is written as “ΜΠΟΓΙΑΤΙ”.
There are many examples. Beside many unofficial signs are placed along the roads.
I insist on naming as destination the road. At least these are validated by ΦΕΚ.

Just because I was the last user to edit any given way does not give you an excuse to attack me for not doing anything about it. Besides, I have already offered to remove the “Είσοδος”, “Έξοδος” and “Κόμβος” name tags, and I am happy to make it an unconditional offer.

What is the problem with the mentioned way? I work with Kaart and I am happy to fix whatever is wrong with the map.

@Map-finder: for this tag


there are several different formats that are common. the generic destination=* is somewhat ambigous because it could be a place a street and locality.


is less confusing and you can use this tag to state the ref tag of the highway that a link is taking you to. Here is an example of that.


is used to designate the street that the link connects to directly.

"destination:ref:to" and "destination:street:to"

are both methods of telling you this is the path to eventually get to these highways. I also believe this is a step for the routing software to prompt “follow signs to Athens” when giving verbal directions.

So, should we all adapt a common way of editing on the map for all kind of “links”?
Or we should categorize depending on minor or major roads? (as a matter of necessity)
If this suggestion is accepted, a special pinned post should be written at the forum so that all users could read this decision and not to be lost in the pages of this post.

Im sorry but i cant discuss the highway links and junctions issue at this time period, because:

First of all, i don’t have the time to study this issue right now, because of exams period in schools and i have many students to tutor.
Second, i think its bad timing for such a discussion because there are other issues that must be solved first.

PS. Its not a good idea to accuse a person because he didn’t fix an old edit error when he did a newer edit. We all do this all the time.
Its better to accuse the person who “put” the error there, in the first place.

kaart only added destinations…these absurd names only appearing after your edits, together with junction:ref…its in way’s history…

In respect of section A, I should make it clear that I do not support extending the classification of the motorway beyond the point where the road of a lower classification crosses, merges or diverges. I already told Kaart that the motorways should not cross a road of a lower classification, because they may not always be restricted to pedestrians (when no crossing routes are mapped).

To put it more specifically, my opinion is that for grade separated junctions, use the highest classification for links where there is no “escape”, up to the point where a road of a lower classification crosses, joins, or leaves. I will amend that in the OP.

For clarity, Roundabouts are not mapped as links.

i fixed most of the A1 motorway links near Athens, i also fixed most of the side roads (especially the junction with EO8)

about destinations: we can keep it simple, local knowledge, signs and common sense (i know many signs are obsolete or just stupid

i think major destinations are in order, no streets etc

About side roads, sideways etc:
Most of them are anonymous.
Ιn favor of easier navigation, how should we name the most of their parts.
We cannot call them all just “sideways” or “side road”
For example A1 has at both sides these kind of road, but the Greek state never tried to name them.
**ika-chan! **what do you suggest about it?
It is wrong the navigator device to say just “turn right” on side road or even worst, if any would like to search for a road like this, how could define which road is represented by a plain name “side way”???

There is not such ΦΕΚ for the most of this road category, it is not set by law, but we must take an initiative to make navigation easier.

I think a separate RfC for road destinations and service roads would be needed, but only to avoid cluttering this thread.

Your patience is appreciated.

**Extra: You can check the progress of the junction:ref= ticket for JOSM here. I originally added the “Είσοδος”, “Έξοδος” and “Κόμβος” name tags because JOSM did not recognise the junction:ref= tags, but if you are happy, I will remove them when you are.

Again, we can do this without trading accusations and insults.

my only objection about junctions’ numbering is the slash symbol.
It can be easily confused of total numbering in a road.
For example, 1/12 mostly reminds me that it is the 1st of 12 junctions and less that 1 is exit and 12 entrance.
I dont know if it is the universal way to number junctions, but I’d suggest other symbols, like 1[12], or 1(12) or even 1>12* and so on.

*symbol “>” works like an arrow

There is a Unicode symbol for an arrow: →