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@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@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von jan meisters <jan_m23@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@lists.mkgmap.org.uk https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev