Hi Gerd,
Yes, I found an error in the check.
Thanks, this message is no longer being issued for this relation. Here is another: 2014/04/05 18:38:10 WARNING (RoadNetwork): 63240002.osm.pbf: Turn restriction (only_right_turn) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/423035 (at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=60.168471&mlon=24.934714&zoom=17) restriction ignored because all possible other ways are wrong direction in oneway The way straight ahead is marked as oneway=yes that prohibits entry, but it carries bicycle:oneway=no, psv:oneway=no. Similarly, the turn restriction is tagged as except=psv;bicycle. While it is a redundant restriction, I suspect that this form of tagging is not being recognized by the via_ways branch. Would mkgmap now be refusing bicycle routing straight ahead? At least the message is a bit misleading or imprecise. I understand that the ; delimiter is troublesome. How should this be tagged? restriction:bicycle=no?
A future improvement could be to handle no_through_route or no_through_driving restrictions, such as relations 2886802 and 2886879. They are not describing the complete route; it is a bit ambiguous what is meant by the relations (and the traffic signs).
If I got that right, the meaning is that you are not allowed to drive into an area if you plan to drive through it. In my eyes this should be handled with the tag access=destination ?
It might not be that simple, because my understanding is that access=destination would prohibit any through-routes, while only certain through-route are being prohibited by the traffic sign. Looking more closely at relation 2886803, the idea seems to be this: ----------------A------------ | | Mestarintie | --------B---+---+---- | | | C | Panuntie If you turn from A down to Mestarintie, you must not turn at crossing B to Panuntie (C), but instead you must continue straight on to the left. (If you stop for a while somewhere between A and B, then it is OK. It is somewhat fuzzy and ambiguous, and seldom enforced, I guess.) There could be some alternative routes A-B-C in that subnet, and I guess that the no_through_driving should still apply, even if you did not use the shortest route A-B-C. An approximation of this restriction could be to prohibit driving only on the shortest route A-B-C. Marko