logo separator

[mkgmap-dev] elevation in bridges and tunnels

From Gerd Petermann gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com on Thu Jan 20 08:34:25 GMT 2022

Hi all,

I also don't like the wrong profile for bridges and tunnels, but there is nothing we can do about this so far.
The other routers know that the have to treat bridges and tunnel special, but Garmin software doesn't have this information.
We also cannot manipulate the elevation data because there may be another highway under the bridge or above the tunnel.


Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von lig fietser <ligfietser at hotmail.com>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Januar 2022 09:20
An: Development list for mkgmap
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] elevation in bridges and tunnels

I've put an example on this forum (in Dutch). The brouter route (https://tinyurl.com/3nt27szy) shows a profile that is more accurate than the route in Basecamp.

Van: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> namens lig fietser <ligfietser at hotmail.com>
Verzonden: woensdag 19 januari 2022 23:55
Aan: Development list for mkgmap <mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk>
Onderwerp: [mkgmap-dev] elevation in bridges and tunnels

Hi guys,
I came across this video on youtube, where ridewithgps.com improved their elevation profiles by ignoring the underlying altititude data of tunnel and bridges:
I found out that other route planners like brouter, cycle.travel and Osmand also ignores the surface altitude that lies above tunnels and underneath bridges, but mkgmap/Garmin does not. This leads to a much higher elevation gain or loss in the route profile than the actual ride. Is it possible for mkgmap to correct this issue, or is it hard coded in the Garmin Basecamp software?

More information about the mkgmap-dev mailing list