<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>Hi Marko,<br>> Thanks, this message is no longer being issued for this relation.<br><div>> <br>> Here is another:<br>> <br>> 2014/04/05 18:38:10 WARNING (RoadNetwork): 63240002.osm.pbf: Turn <br>> restriction (only_right_turn) <br>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/423035 (at <br>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=60.168471&mlon=24.934714&zoom=17) <br>> restriction ignored because all possible other ways are wrong direction <br>> in oneway<br>> <br>> The way straight ahead is marked as oneway=yes that prohibits entry, but <br>> it carries bicycle:oneway=no, psv:oneway=no. Similarly, the turn <br>> restriction is tagged as except=psv;bicycle.<br>> <br>> While it is a redundant restriction, I suspect that this form of tagging <br>> is not being recognized by the via_ways branch. Would mkgmap now be <br>> refusing bicycle routing straight ahead? At least the message is a bit <br>> misleading or imprecise. I understand that the ; delimiter is <br>> troublesome. How should this be tagged? restriction:bicycle=no?<br><br>For mkgmap, the except tag can contain a comma or semicolon separated list.<br>On the other hand, the message says that the restriction is ignored. <br>It doesn't mean that the restriction relation in OSM is wrong or obsolete,<br>as it depends on the style and used options if any routable<br>way is available for that the restriction has an effect,<br>also, the input file might not contain the complete area,<br>so you always have to look at the OSM data.<br>If you use option --make-opposite-cycleways and remove the <br>bicycle from the except list, the message should disappear.<br><br>By the way, I've also modified splitter to make sure<br>that it keeps all supported restriction types complete.<br><br>> <br>> >> A future improvement could be to handle no_through_route or <br>> >> no_through_driving restrictions, such as relations 2886802 and <br>> >> 2886879.<br>> >> They are not describing the complete route; it is a bit ambiguous <br>> >> what is meant by the relations (and the traffic signs).<br>> ><br>> >If I got that right, the meaning is that you are not allowed to drive <br>> >into an area if you plan to drive through it. In my eyes this should be <br>> >handled with the tag access=destination ?<br>> <br>> It might not be that simple, because my understanding is that <br>> access=destination would prohibit any through-routes, while only certain <br>> through-route are being prohibited by the traffic sign. Looking more <br>> closely at relation 2886803, the idea seems to be this:<br>> <br>> ----------------A------------<br>> |<br>> | Mestarintie<br>> |<br>> --------B---+---+----<br>> | | |<br>> C<br>> | Panuntie<br>> <br>> If you turn from A down to Mestarintie, you must not turn at crossing B <br>> to Panuntie (C), but instead you must continue straight on to the left. <br>> (If you stop for a while somewhere between A and B, then it is OK. It is <br>> somewhat fuzzy and ambiguous, and seldom enforced, I guess.)<br>> <br>> There could be some alternative routes A-B-C in that subnet, and I guess <br>> that the no_through_driving should still apply, even if you did not use <br>> the shortest route A-B-C.<br>> <br>> An approximation of this restriction could be to prohibit driving only <br>> on the shortest route A-B-C.<br><br>I see no simple way to support that, as it requires 1st to implement a <br>routing algo, and I also doubt that we can translate that to the img<br>format. I agree to you 2nd post that mkgmap should only print<br>one message for this. <br><br>Gerd<br></div> </div></body>
</html>