Thanks for the clarification. Am Fr., 8. Feb. 2019, 16:37 hat Greg Troxel <[email protected]> geschrieben:
> Klaus D. Günther <[email protected]> writes: > > > Another reason why a road may be avoided by the Osmand routing algorithm > is > > when it has been declared as agricultural or silvicultural. Actually this > > means that it is closed for private cars, but open for hikers and bikers. > > But in OSM the latter fact must be declared explicitly, or else hikers > and > > bikers will be excluded from such roads: rather misleading for osm > mappers. > > It's just a fact of life that complicated access restrictions need > multiple tags. > > Around me, there are things that are physically rough roads, where cars > are banned but bicycles and hiking (and horses) are allowed, and > access=private > foot=designated > bicycle=yes > horse=yes > > is how the are or should be tagged. > > If you are running into roads that just say "access=private" but really > are legally open to hiking/biking, then the tags need changing. I'm > not sure what you mean by misleading - access as a tag is meant to apply > to all modes, unless overridden by a mode-specific tag like foot=. > > The good news is that you can fix all this up and have a map that works > right. > -- 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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
