[mkgmap-dev] motor_vehicle

Sun Feb 21 09:53:46 GMT 2010

2010/2/21 Mark Burton <markb at ordern.com>:
>
> Hi Marko,
>
>> > motor_vehicle is not understood by mkgmap
>>
>> Actually, why not? If my memory serves right, mkgmap understands
>> motorcar and motorcycle (and maps them to the same access bit), but why
>> not motor_vehicle? For example in my understanding, tractors are
>> covered by motor_vehicle but not motorcar or motorcycle. The road sign
>> for banning motor vehicles does ban tractors too.

Yes, "motor_vehicle" is a group for all motorized vehicles and
"vehicle" is a group for *all* vehicles, including the group
motor_vehicles.

Wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access

>
> Well, no good reason, actually. It's just never been done. Consider it
> an omission.

It would be great if mkgmap could be made "motor_vehicle" and
"vehicle"-aware, as actually, the garmin class we use for motorcar &
motorbike seems to mean all motor vehicles, afaik.

In my own style, I use this line before the highway definitions:

highway=* & ( motor_vehicle | vehicle ) = ( no | destination
|agricultural | private) { add motorcar=no}

To get all those cases of  "motor_vehicle=no",
"motor_vehicle=agricultural" and "vehicle=no, bicycle=yes" right.

Btw, is there any difference for my garmin unit between motorcar=no
and motorcar=destination? I mean will *=no be avoided more strict than
*=destination, even when there is no other way to reach a target?

cheers,

Martin