Stefan Monnier <[email protected]> writes: >> But that's a mostly-right sort-of-messy implementation of the more >> complicated "represent who can do what", > > There can be cases where a finer notion of "who is allowed to use which > road when" might be useful, but I think we're pretty far from that, and > the above heuristic should cover the vast majority of cases.
Yes, I meant that really expressing every is way too complicated. >> and likely to be fragile in practice. > > I don't see why it should end up fragile. I have actually been misrouted, by apple maps, for this very reason. This was driving in England, with two phones, one runing osmand and one running apple, trying to get to Blenheim Palace from the west. If you aren't driving and explore OSM, the right thing to do is pretty obvious, because you can see the palace and the carpark. But, that road was I think labaled private at the time. There are roads in the back of the property labeled private also, and those are really private, not for visitors. Apple Maps was sending us via those. This is what I meant by fragile; you can really only use some private roads, not all, and the data model isn't rich enough to encode which. Usually it's ok. https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=51.8116%2C-1.4351%3B51.8462%2C-1.3545#map=13/51.8334/-1.3859 and compare to https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=51.8116%2C-1.4351%3B51.8462%2C-1.3545#map=13/51.8291/-1.3929 which I suspect is not a legit route. -- 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osmand/rmimu7p7uoz.fsf%40s1.lexort.com.
