I'll give a try with your proposal, I believe it might fix the routing however if I got it right, tunnels will not be visible as per my 1st email attempt.
On the other side, related to your comment* "with your latest rules, secondary highway with tunnel finishes processing of this object*", I believe this was my intention: up to res 21 I'd like the line to appear as 0x04, from resolution 22 it should appear as 0x11 if a tunnel, otherwise 0x04 - no further processing is needed. Could you pls let me know why the reasoning is not correct? Thanks! On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Andrzej Popowski <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Enrico, > > with your latest rules, secondary highway with tunnel finishes processing > of this object. Try this: > > highway=secondary & ( network=e-road | int_ref=* ) [0x04 resolution 18-19 > continue] > highway=secondary & tunnel=yes [0x11 resolution 22 continue] > highway=secondary [0x04 road_class=2 road_speed=3 resolution 20] > > Don't make tunnels routable, since you will get 2 routable roads at the > same place, which probably is not needed, unless you add different > avoidances to each. Probably would be better to use a line outside routable > lines (not lines 0x01 - 0x13). > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrzej > > > _______________________________________________ > mkgmap-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev >
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
