On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Marko Mäkelä <marko.makela@iki.fi> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 02:52:59PM +0200, Ben Konrath wrote:
'access = yes' is definitely being and it seems to be a valid tag/value pair according the wiki. I think it would be a good idea to remove the 'access = yes' from the OSM data. Perhaps we could remove this tag/value pair when mkgmap is reading in the data? That way all of the ways will be "normalized" to mean 'access = yes' if no access tag is present. And then we could keep 'add access = no' for the cycleways which would give the correct behaviour.
With this scheme, we would still get the proper behaviour with cycleways that have been tagged as access=destination (implying motor vehicle routing).
Yep.
I can see that my 'set access = no' with overwrite other types of access like 'access = destination' so it's not a good way forward. Thoughts?
Would something like this work at the top of the style file?
highway=* & access = yes { delete access }
I didn't know you could that with the style rules. I just tried this but it actually removed the whole way in the resulting map. Maybe there's a bug in mkgmap with this type of rule??
I would prefer to do such tweaks in the style language, if possible. For example, the --make-opposite-cycleways (or whatever it is called) would be easier to understand and maintain if it made use of the continue_with_actions that was introduced after the feature was implemented.
Yeah, I agree. Using the style rules for things like this makes it more maintainable.
It could be a good idea to treat motor_vehicle the same as motorcar and motorcycle, and warn if there is a conflict (such as motorcar=yes, motorcycle=no).
That seems good. Do you know how to represent that in the style file? Thanks, Ben