[mkgmap-dev] Question on routing difference

Sun May 29 13:07:15 BST 2022

Hi Gerd,

do you mean another routable line?
All (routable) highways are echotagged in my style atm, but I can´t find 27463238 twice.

Jan

> Am 29.05.2022 um 09:16 schrieb Gerd Petermann <gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com>:
> 
> Hi Jan,
> 
> might be the oneway:bicycle=no on way 27463238 which can create an additional path in the opposite direction.
> 
> Gerd
> 
> ________________________________________
> Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von jan meisters <jan_m23 at gmx.net>
> Gesendet: Samstag, 28. Mai 2022 20:15
> An: Development list for mkgmap
> Betreff: [mkgmap-dev] Question on routing difference
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I´m using an altered copy of the OFM style and therefore sometimes compare the results.
> One routing difference I found I was able to lead back, but the cause I don´t understand at all.
> 
> My test-route should prefer the small residential „Altengabengäßchen“ over the primary „Viktoriastrasse“.
> Latest OFM does, my version not since I removed {add bicycle=yes} from this line:
> highway=path & surface ~ '(paved|asphalt|sett|concrete|paving_stones|paving_stones:30)' & access!=no & access!=private & vehicle!=no { set highway=pedestrian; add bicycle=yes; add motorcar=yes; }
> 
> But unfortunately there is no path or pedestrian in the test-route, nor is it an option to use one.
> Anyone has an idea how this path>pedestrian rule could affect routing on residential/primary?
> Same happens when I replay the change with the original OFM.
> 
> Up-to-date osm.pbf, route from BC and screenshots are here: https://files.mkgmap.org.uk/download/556/test_route.zip
> 
> Thanks
> Jan
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev