[mkgmap-dev] r3165 in via_ways branch

Sat Apr 5 17:09:36 BST 2014

Hi Gerd,

>Yes, I found an error in the check.

Thanks, this message is no longer being issued for this relation.

Here is another:

2014/04/05 18:38:10 WARNING (RoadNetwork): 63240002.osm.pbf: Turn 
restriction (only_right_turn) 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/423035 (at 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=60.168471&mlon=24.934714&zoom=17) 
restriction ignored because all possible other ways are wrong direction 
in oneway

The way straight ahead is marked as oneway=yes that prohibits entry, but 
it carries bicycle:oneway=no, psv:oneway=no. Similarly, the turn 
restriction is tagged as except=psv;bicycle.

While it is a redundant restriction, I suspect that this form of tagging 
is not being recognized by the via_ways branch. Would mkgmap now be 
refusing bicycle routing straight ahead? At least the message is a bit 
misleading or imprecise. I understand that the ; delimiter is 
troublesome. How should this be tagged? restriction:bicycle=no?

>> A future improvement could be to handle no_through_route or 
>> no_through_driving restrictions, such as relations 2886802 and 
>> 2886879.
>> They are not describing the complete route; it is a bit ambiguous 
>> what is meant by the relations (and the traffic signs).
>
>If I got that right, the meaning is that you are not allowed to drive 
>into an area if you plan to drive through it. In my eyes this should be 
>handled with the tag access=destination ?

It might not be that simple, because my understanding is that 
access=destination would prohibit any through-routes, while only certain 
through-route are being prohibited by the traffic sign. Looking more 
closely at relation 2886803, the idea seems to be this:

----------------A------------
		|
		| Mestarintie
		|
--------B---+---+----
	|   |   |
	C
	| Panuntie

If you turn from A down to Mestarintie, you must not turn at crossing B 
to Panuntie (C), but instead you must continue straight on to the left.  
(If you stop for a while somewhere between A and B, then it is OK. It is 
somewhat fuzzy and ambiguous, and seldom enforced, I guess.)

There could be some alternative routes A-B-C in that subnet, and I guess 
that the no_through_driving should still apply, even if you did not use 
the shortest route A-B-C.

An approximation of this restriction could be to prohibit driving only 
on the shortest route A-B-C.

	Marko