Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> writes: > Seems like for route planning, the safe bet would be worst case scenario, > lowest speed of the three possible maxspeed values. For example, a > mountain road that (mostly motorcycle) traffic typically whips through > curves at 70-90 km/h in a 110 km/h zone and have advisories (which are set > assuming family cars in the US) for 40-50 km/h is probably only going to be > traversable at about 30-40 km/h in a pickup.
I more or less agree with the sentiment, and that probably does not lead to bad routes, especially because ramps are where the goofiness is and they are short. I see maxspeed:typical as being for the flow of mixed traffic that is being reasonable. However, my specific example is a ramp where the advisory signs say 20 mph but traffic is 99% of the time moving between 35mph (if there's a cautious truck) and 50 mph (just cars, people familiar). The 20 signs are because trucks going >50 keep rolling over, I think - which does not make sense. But another ramp near me is much tighter, has an advisory speed of 35 mph, and going 45 mph is exciting in a car and would probably roll a truck. So I think we need a maxspeed:practical or speed:typical to encode these, and use them in preference to regulatory/advistory limits. Perhaps in your jurisdiction advisory speeds are rational. Usually they are. But OSM can't fix Massachusetts; we just have to encode reality. I suspect there are many other places with a disconnect between limits and reality. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Osmand" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osmand+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
