[mkgmap-dev] Suppressing dead-end-checks for parking entrance/exit

Sat Mar 16 09:56:17 GMT 2013

Hi Marko,
> 
> OK, it is not dead-end for everyone, because the highway=pedestrian area 
> (plaza) 35826685 is connected to the driveway. We may route pedestrians 
> on the edges of the highway=pedestrian area. We might route bicycles too 
> (AFAIU, it is allowed in Finland with maxspeed=20, but not allowed in 
> Germany).
> 
> It is the same thing if you had a oneway highway=service that ends in a 
> path or steps. It is not dead-end for pedestrians, but would be a 
> dead-end for cars.
> 
> I wrote some months ago about a possible project to highlight dead-ends 
> on the map, but nobody replied. I think it should be a set of 'dead-end 
> layers', one for each mode of routing. Then you could easily survey all 
> those nearby suspectable cases when going for a walk or a bicycle trip.
> 
> Pedestrians can use steps, cannot legally use highway=cycleway. For 
> bicycles it is vice versa. Both can use paths and most ways except 
> motorways. Cars can use all ways except those meant for bicycles and 
> pedestrians. There are really multiple routing graphs to consider if you 
> want to check for dead-ends properly.

I agree that it would be better to check each road network separately, but I 
don't think that mkgmap is the right program for this. Maybe you can use different 
styles for that?

On the other hand, I think the dead end check that is implemented now is  incorrect because it 
doesn't report all "individual oneway roads that go nowhere" as documented.
I did not find a simple way to fix that in the existing routine, but it can be done in the StyledConverter, 
because it is very similar to the check for unconnected roads implemented with r2530.

Gerd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/attachments/20130316/c15f7322/attachment.html 