<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi Gerd,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I just played with the routing prefs to see if I could change something ;-)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I´m using it like this: <a href="https://files.mkgmap.org.uk/download/557/OFM_default-BC_Mac.png" class="">https://files.mkgmap.org.uk/download/557/OFM_default-BC_Mac.png</a></div><div class="">And same here, checked toll-avoidance routes as preferred, unchecked over the primary.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Toll-avoidance should <u class="">prefer</u> bicycleroutes according to Minko.</div><div class="">I´ve unchecked long ago for some reason, don´t remember why and have to recompare.</div><div class="">But same as no path is routed there is no bicycleroute …</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Jan<br class=""><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Am 29.05.2022 um 16:17 schrieb Gerd Petermann <<a href="mailto:gpetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com" class="">gpetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com</a>>:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Hi jan,<br class=""><br class="">maybe my routing profile for OFM bike is different?<br class=""><br class="">Not sure what Minko recommends today. Mine says "Faster Time", Standard Elevation Mode, only road type avoidance is for "Roll Roads".<br class="">When I remove the toll roads avoidance the route is different and follows the major road.<br class=""><br class="">Gerd<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">________________________________________<br class="">Von: mkgmap-dev <<a href="mailto:mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk" class="">mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk</a>> im Auftrag von jan meisters <<a href="mailto:jan_m23@gmx.net" class="">jan_m23@gmx.net</a>><br class="">Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. Mai 2022 16:07<br class="">An: Development list for mkgmap<br class="">Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Question on routing difference<br class=""><br class="">Hi Gerd,<br class=""><br class="">here OFM lite gives the same unwanted result as OFM full :-(<br class=""><br class="">Jan<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Am 29.05.2022 um 14:54 schrieb Gerd Petermann <<a href="mailto:gpetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com" class="">gpetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com</a>>:<br class=""><br class="">Hi Jan,<br class=""><br class="">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<br class="">but found no difference, the wanted route is calculated for both versions.<br class=""><br class="">Gerd<br class=""><br class="">________________________________________<br class="">Von: mkgmap-dev <<a href="mailto:mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk" class="">mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk</a>> im Auftrag von Gerd Petermann <<a href="mailto:gpetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com" class="">gpetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com</a>><br class="">Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. Mai 2022 14:10<br class="">An: Development list for mkgmap<br class="">Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Question on routing difference<br class=""><br class="">Hi Jan,<br class=""><br class="">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.<br class=""><br class="">Gerd<br class=""><br class="">________________________________________<br class="">Von: mkgmap-dev <<a href="mailto:mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk" class="">mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk</a>> im Auftrag von jan meisters <<a href="mailto:jan_m23@gmx.net" class="">jan_m23@gmx.net</a>><br class="">Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. Mai 2022 14:07<br class="">An: Development list for mkgmap<br class="">Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Question on routing difference<br class=""><br class="">Hi Gerd,<br class=""><br class="">do you mean another routable line?<br class="">All (routable) highways are echotagged in my style atm, but I can´t find 27463238 twice.<br class=""><br class="">Jan<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Am 29.05.2022 um 09:16 schrieb Gerd Petermann <<a href="mailto:gpetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com" class="">gpetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com</a>>:<br class=""><br class="">Hi Jan,<br class=""><br class="">might be the oneway:bicycle=no on way 27463238 which can create an additional path in the opposite direction.<br class=""><br class="">Gerd<br class=""><br class="">________________________________________<br class="">Von: mkgmap-dev <<a href="mailto:mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk" class="">mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk</a>> im Auftrag von jan meisters <<a href="mailto:jan_m23@gmx.net" class="">jan_m23@gmx.net</a>><br class="">Gesendet: Samstag, 28. Mai 2022 20:15<br class="">An: Development list for mkgmap<br class="">Betreff: [mkgmap-dev] Question on routing difference<br class=""><br class="">Hi all,<br class=""><br class="">I´m using an altered copy of the OFM style and therefore sometimes compare the results.<br class="">One routing difference I found I was able to lead back, but the cause I don´t understand at all.<br class=""><br class="">My test-route should prefer the small residential „Altengabengäßchen“ over the primary „Viktoriastrasse“.<br class="">Latest OFM does, my version not since I removed {add bicycle=yes} from this line:<br class="">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; }<br class=""><br class="">But unfortunately there is no path or pedestrian in the test-route, nor is it an option to use one.<br class="">Anyone has an idea how this path>pedestrian rule could affect routing on residential/primary?<br class="">Same happens when I replay the change with the original OFM.<br class=""><br class="">Up-to-date osm.pbf, route from BC and screenshots are here: <a href="https://files.mkgmap.org.uk/download/556/test_route.zip" class="">https://files.mkgmap.org.uk/download/556/test_route.zip</a><br class=""><br class="">Thanks<br class="">Jan<br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">mkgmap-dev mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk" class="">mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk</a><br class="">https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev<br class=""></blockquote><br class=""></blockquote><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">mkgmap-dev mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk" class="">mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk</a><br class="">https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev<br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">mkgmap-dev mailing list<br class="">mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk<br class="">https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>