Garmin routing seems to be like it uses only major roads (based on route
class) to figure out any longer routes and uses small roads only in the
beginning and end to get to the larger routes.
This is a pain in bicycle routing because it can direct to large roads
even when wanted. It seems if there is no valid route, garmin uses what
is has. It can direct bicycle to a bicycle=no road like a major trunk or
motorway. (That is at least how my cycling garmin devices definately
work, even in cycle mode).
If you increase road class of smaller roads, they get taken into account
too. But the route calculation and recalculation can be VERY long. When
I tried elevating cycleways to similar class with motorways, a 17km
route took on some earlier devices something like 20mins to
calculate/recalculate the route.
I've never tried toll roads. Petrhaps I could misuse that in my style to
make large roads that bicycle is not allowed to be "toll" and make
garmin avoid them better. This message gave me an idea to try out. I've
no idea how well that would work as there are practically no toll roads
where I live.
On 5/29/22 5:17 PM, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi jan,
maybe my routing profile for OFM bike is different?
Not sure what Minko recommends today. Mine says "Faster Time", Standard Elevation Mode,
only road type avoidance is for "Roll Roads".
When I remove the toll roads avoidance the route is different and follows the
major road.
Gerd
________________________________________
Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-boun...@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von jan meisters
<jan_...@gmx.net>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. Mai 2022 16:07
An: Development list for mkgmap
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Question on routing difference
Hi Gerd,
here OFM lite gives the same unwanted result as OFM full :-(
Jan
Am 29.05.2022 um 14:54 schrieb Gerd Petermann <gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com>:
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 <mkgmap-dev-boun...@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Gerd
Petermann <gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com>
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 <mkgmap-dev-boun...@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von jan meisters
<jan_...@gmx.net>
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 <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
_______________________________________________
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
