Hi Minko, okay, got it. So maybe we have to separate the "well known" routable types 0x01 -0x13 , 0x1a, 0x1b, 0x16 from others which are also routable?
Gerd ligfietser wrote > Hi Gerd, > > Let me give an example when it goes wrong then: > highway=unclassified [0x06 road_class=3 road_speed=2 resolution 23 > continue with_actions] > bicycleroute=yes [0x02 road_class=4 road_speed=3 resolution 22 continue] > > I have to use continue because this rule must continue for > highway=pedestrian areas which are also handled in the polygons style. > > If I remove the road parameters from the second line routing breaks: > bicycleroute=yes [0x02 resolution 22 continue] > > > > _______________________________________________ > mkgmap-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Commit-r3259-remove-most-checks-regarding-routable-non-routable-types-tp5805376p5805732.html Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
