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_muenc...@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-boun...@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von jan
> meisters <jan_...@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@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
