[mkgmap-dev] Bicycle routing improvements (reverting breakage from r1431)From Dermot McNally dermotm at gmail.com on Tue Aug 10 21:52:09 BST 2010
On 10 August 2010 16:27, Felix Hartmann <extremecarver at googlemail.com> wrote: > to be routed on roads without much traffic. As long as there is no > consensus worldwide whether or not cyclists by default are allowed on > trunk roads, I wouldn't add them (and even then it probably makes not > much sense, you would have to enter them as road_class=0, road_speed=0 > --> but that clashes with motorcar usage). The question here is whether you exclude bikes, not whether you add them. I get the fact that a "smaller" road less trafficked by motor vehicles will often be better for cycling and that this is at odds with how Garmin devices will try to route them. But they problem is that highway=trunk can occur in important places in a road network that are not so nice to have to avoid on a bike. As an example, have a look at the trunk roads that occur in the centre of Dublin: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.34725&lon=-6.2653&zoom=16&layers=M Certainly, as a city centre, these roads can be full of cars, but no more so than any other city streets, and having these routes prohibited to cyclists gets in the way of reasonable routing. Worse, if you disallow them to pedestrians, a route to, say, a shop located on the trunk road can't even be calculated. And keep in mind here that I'm not asking for a special case to support some strange quirk of Irish mapping. The assumptions of build quality or access restrictions are the special cases here, we're just using the tag as originally conceived. I wish I had a better suggestion, though... Dermot -- -------------------------------------- Iren sind menschlich
- Previous message: [mkgmap-dev] Bicycle routing improvements (reverting breakage from r1431)
- Next message: [mkgmap-dev] Routing does not work since December.
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the mkgmap-dev mailing list