[mkgmap-dev] default style lines enhancements

Mon Jul 27 16:32:20 BST 2020

Hi Gerd & Nick

I'll comment out the rules that give "Course of old Railway"

Concerning footways around car parks:

I'd used:
  set mkgmap:set_unconnected_type=none;
  set mkgmap:set_semi_connected_type=none;
so that if the footway didn't connect 2 other highways (road or path)
it would be discarded and not create any routing islands.

When walking in some areas, I've found mappers had frequently run
footpaths up to car parks, but not joined them to the road/parking
-alley or other footpaths, so routing that spans the car park fails.
The problem is also common in town center car parks where the car park
is just off the High Street and can be accessed on foot by various
alleys.

Other areas (village greens, parks etc) can be problematic, but greens
are often surrounded by roads and parks & golf courses normally have
the footpaths explicitly mapped.

Having some functionality that join unconnected ends of highways within
a polygon would be a better solution as Nick says. My solution relies
on mappers at least joining the path to the edge of the car park;

Ticker

On Sat, 2020-07-25 at 11:11 +0100, nick wrote:
> Hi Ticker,
> 
> I agree with Gerd that creating a route around all car parks may not
> be 
> ideal.
> 
> I fear that in most of the cases it will create extra lines when they
> aren't necessary .
> 
> When an osm mapper is not concerned about  routing across car parks ,
>   
> it seems only in certain cases paths stop on the outline of a car
> park 
> and in my experience some 'ends'  just get plonked on top of the
> carpark !
> 
> However, as with pedestrian areas, unfortunately , there are other 
> polygons, ie parks ,golf courses, grass lands, which are equally 
> problematic.
> 
> Some plot highway=virtual to ensure some routing - although this gets
> frowned upon by some.
> 
> Ideally mkgmap  identifies ends of highways inside a polygon and
> joins 
> them, but that might also be unsatisfactory.
> 
> Anyway, thanks for your great efforts to bring this style  up  to
> date !
> 
> Nick
> 
> On 25/07/2020 09:28, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> > Hi Ticker,
> > 
> > ok, most of the changes look plausible to me, but I see no need to
> > add the lines for razed / disued / abandoned etc. railways. I would
> > comment these two lines:
> > abandoned:railway=* | demolished:railway=* | removed:railway=* |
> > razed:railway=* | was:railway=* | historic:railway=* {add
> > railway=lifecyclePrefix}
> > railway=* & railway!=miniature & railway!=proposed & tunnel!=yes &
> > highway!=* & is_closed()=false [0x19 resolution 22]
> > 
> > I am also not sure about the routable lines for amenity=parking.
> > Even with the test reg. connected this probably creates lots of
> > routing islands. As a mapper, I've never cared to connect those
> > areas to the road network, but I know that other mappers do this.
> > Is it meant to improve pedestrian routing?
> > 
> > Gerd