[mkgmap-dev] access=permissive question

Wed Aug 8 13:03:07 BST 2012

On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 07:29:45AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>The harder question in Felix's case is that, if I followed, he would 
>like to not ride on a road if it has an associated official cycleway, 
>because one can't, but if they are separate ways then maybe that's 
>tagged bicyle=no, and that works ok.

Yes, because in Germany it is compulsory to use a cycleway where one 
exists next to a 'car road'. Only with highway=footway+bicycle=yes you 
have some choice.

In Finland, cycleway use is not enforced, except maybe on highway=trunk 
roads. Use of cycleway is somewhat optional even according to the 
regulations (if short distance and it is safer to not use the cycleway).

AFAIU, the Vienna convention mandates cycleway use only if it is a 
segregated cycleway, not a non-segregated foot/cycleway.

The problem with setting bicycle=no on the 'car highway' is that it may 
break bicycle routing.

Apparently, the Edge 705 routing is ignoring any cycleways, except those 
that are within about 5km of the origin or the destination. I have 
observed similar shortcuts in the OsmAnd offline routing. Therefore, it 
might be better to somehow associate the cycleway with the adjacent 
highway, instead of adding bicycle=no.

For example, there are some sections of the highway 45 near my home 
tagged as bicycle=no (which is OK, because the traffic sign says so). My 
Garmin Edge 705 would prefer to make a 100km+ detour using some tertiary 
roads when routing to a destination that is less than 100km away, if the 
best route would be along highway 45.

So far, I think that the best option is to treat 
yes/permissive/designated/official in the same way. That is, either 
preserve or delete all of these values of access=* and basically only 
leave the access=no|private and access=destination untouched.

	Marko