[mkgmap-dev] Question on routing difference

Sun May 29 15:07:14 BST 2022

Hi Gerd,

here OFM lite gives the same unwanted result as OFM full :-(

Jan

> Am 29.05.2022 um 14:54 schrieb Gerd Petermann <gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com>:
> 
> Hi Jan,
> 
> the artifical way would be a highway=residential, not path. Anyhow, I tried to reproduce the different routing results with the mentioned change in the OFM lite style
> but found no difference, the wanted route is calculated for both versions.
> 
> Gerd
> 
> ________________________________________
> Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Gerd Petermann <gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com>
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. Mai 2022 14:10
> An: Development list for mkgmap
> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Question on routing difference
> 
> Hi Jan,
> 
> not sure if you would find it with that id, since it would be an artificial way. Don't have time now, will look into this later.
> 
> Gerd
> 
> ________________________________________
> Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von jan meisters <jan_m23 at gmx.net>
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. Mai 2022 14:07
> An: Development list for mkgmap
> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Question on routing difference
> 
> Hi Gerd,
> 
> do you mean another routable line?
> All (routable) highways are echotagged in my style atm, but I can´t find 27463238 twice.
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
>> Am 29.05.2022 um 09:16 schrieb Gerd Petermann <gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com>:
>> 
>> Hi Jan,
>> 
>> might be the oneway:bicycle=no on way 27463238 which can create an additional path in the opposite direction.
>> 
>> Gerd
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von jan meisters <jan_m23 at gmx.net>
>> Gesendet: Samstag, 28. Mai 2022 20:15
>> An: Development list for mkgmap
>> Betreff: [mkgmap-dev] Question on routing difference
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I´m using an altered copy of the OFM style and therefore sometimes compare the results.
>> One routing difference I found I was able to lead back, but the cause I don´t understand at all.
>> 
>> My test-route should prefer the small residential „Altengabengäßchen“ over the primary „Viktoriastrasse“.
>> Latest OFM does, my version not since I removed {add bicycle=yes} from this line:
>> highway=path & surface ~ '(paved|asphalt|sett|concrete|paving_stones|paving_stones:30)' & access!=no & access!=private & vehicle!=no { set highway=pedestrian; add bicycle=yes; add motorcar=yes; }
>> 
>> But unfortunately there is no path or pedestrian in the test-route, nor is it an option to use one.
>> Anyone has an idea how this path>pedestrian rule could affect routing on residential/primary?
>> Same happens when I replay the change with the original OFM.
>> 
>> Up-to-date osm.pbf, route from BC and screenshots are here: https://files.mkgmap.org.uk/download/556/test_route.zip
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Jan
>> _______________________________________________
>> mkgmap-dev mailing list
>> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
>> https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> 