Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > it would be interesting to know what routers make of highway=no.
From https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/blob/master/profiles/foot.lua: elseif access and access_tag_whitelist[access] then -- unknown way, but valid access tag result.forward_speed = walking_speed result.backward_speed = walking_speed i.e. OSRM's foot profile will route over an unknown highway value if there is a valid access tag. (The bike profile is similar.) This isn't necessarily a bad thing - it's a fallback for old tags like highway=minor or highway=byway, and perhaps for typos too. I'm not enormously comfortable with highway=no - it's a bit like the justly discouraged amenity=pub, disused=yes. The designation= tag should be enough on its own for something that isn't actually a highway on the ground. (Maybe one could invent a namespaced highway tag but I can't immediately think of anything suitable...) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Composite-mapping-OSM-and-OS-PRoWs-etc-tp5881904p5882202.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
