[mkgmap-dev] Question on routing difference

Sun May 29 13:54:54 BST 2022

Hi Jan,

the artifical way would be a highway=residential, not path. Anyhow, I tried to reproduce the different routing results with the mentioned change in the OFM lite style
but found no difference, the wanted route is calculated for both versions.

Gerd

________________________________________
Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Gerd Petermann <gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. Mai 2022 14:10
An: Development list for mkgmap
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Question on routing difference

Hi Jan,

not sure if you would find it with that id, since it would be an artificial way. Don't have time now, will look into this later.

Gerd

________________________________________
Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von jan meisters <jan_m23 at gmx.net>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. Mai 2022 14:07
An: Development list for mkgmap
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Question on routing difference

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

_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev