logo separator

[mkgmap-dev] Support for motor_vehicle=*

From Colin Smale colin.smale at xs4all.nl on Mon Oct 10 23:41:19 BST 2011

On 10/10/2011 21:36, Felix Hartmann wrote:
> On 10.10.2011 20:23, Colin Smale wrote:
>> Having retagged some roads in my area as a result of some changes to
>> road layouts, I noticed that my Garmin was routing me over a bit of road
>> which I had tagged "motor_vehicle=no". The road is signposted with the
>> usual "No Motor Vehicles" sign (red ring containing a car above a
>> motorcycle) which, according to both the NL and general wikis should be
>> tagged as "motor_vehicle=no". This is also supported by the fact that
>> Potlatch2 includes an easily accessible facility to set this tag.
>> Having browsed through the source and the style files I could find no
>> reference to the motor_vehicle tag, which surprised me a bit... Anyway I
>> fixed it for me by adding a single instruction to the "lines" file:
>> # add support for motor_vehicle
>> highway=*&   motor_vehicle!=yes
>>        {add access='${motor_vehicle}'; add foot=yes; add bicycle=yes; add
>> mofa=yes; add moped=yes; add horse=yes}
>> This handles motor_vehicle=no and motor_vehicle=destination ("except for
>> access" in the UK for example). I assume "motor_vehicle=yes" (don't know
>> when one might use this) will work properly anyway.
> you can do whatever you want for moped or mofa. They don't exist for a
> Garmin GPS, so drop em. Not even motorcycle exist, so simply forget it
> quick again.
Good point. However I am wondering if a moped or a "mofa" may sometimes 
be counted as a motor vehicle, and sometimes not. In NL they don't count 
but I can't find anything in UK law to indicate that they are not. So a 
moped may pass such a sign in NL but not in UK. By keeping the 
categories explicit I was trying to keep it easy to customise per country.
>> The moped and mofa tags reflect the rules here in NL, where these
>> vehicles are not counted as motor vehicles for the purposes of this
>> sign. If these subtleties are different in other countries, it can
>> easily be adapted by referencing mkgmap:country.
>> Is this a reasonable way to do this? If so, could it be added to the
>> standard mkgmap distribution?
> No a reasonable rule would be
> highway=*&  motor_vehicle=no
> {set motorcar=no; set hgv=no; addt bus=no; add taxi=no; add truck=no;
> add emergency=no; add delivery=no}
> or another way would be to do
> highway=*&  motor_vehicle=* { add motorcar='${motor_vehicle}'; add
> bus=...... and so on but don't touch foot or bicycle especially adding
> yes is nonsense - yes is the default anyhow }
My idea was to start from a base of access=no/destination and then 
explicitly allow non-motorised categories as this list seems to be much 
more compact. How is it better to start implicitly with access=yes and 
then explicitly deny access to certain categories instead? Does that 
work better in mkgmap?

Anyway I was hoping to see if there is any support for getting 
motor_vehicle into mkgmap, considering how well-established it seems to 
be on the wiki and in Potlatch. I don't really mind if it goes round the 
north or round the south, as long it has the desired effect. I have 
found a solution that works for me. There are 106000 ways out there with 
this tag. I thought someone else might also be wondering why their 
satnav sends them down illegal routes.


More information about the mkgmap-dev mailing list