Hi Gerd, here OFM lite gives the same unwanted result as OFM full :-(
Jan > Am 29.05.2022 um 14:54 schrieb Gerd Petermann > <[email protected]>: > > 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 <[email protected]> im Auftrag von Gerd > Petermann <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> im Auftrag von jan > meisters <[email protected]> > 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 >> <[email protected]>: >> >> 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 <[email protected]> im Auftrag von jan >> meisters <[email protected]> >> 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 >> [email protected] >> https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev > _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
