2010/2/21 Mark Burton <markb@ordern.com>:
Hi Marko,
motor_vehicle is not understood by mkgmap
Actually, why not? If my memory serves right, mkgmap understands motorcar and motorcycle (and maps them to the same access bit), but why not motor_vehicle? For example in my understanding, tractors are covered by motor_vehicle but not motorcar or motorcycle. The road sign for banning motor vehicles does ban tractors too.
Yes, "motor_vehicle" is a group for all motorized vehicles and "vehicle" is a group for *all* vehicles, including the group motor_vehicles. Wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access
Well, no good reason, actually. It's just never been done. Consider it an omission.
It would be great if mkgmap could be made "motor_vehicle" and "vehicle"-aware, as actually, the garmin class we use for motorcar & motorbike seems to mean all motor vehicles, afaik. In my own style, I use this line before the highway definitions: highway=* & ( motor_vehicle | vehicle ) = ( no | destination |agricultural | private) { add motorcar=no} To get all those cases of "motor_vehicle=no", "motor_vehicle=agricultural" and "vehicle=no, bicycle=yes" right. Btw, is there any difference for my garmin unit between motorcar=no and motorcar=destination? I mean will *=no be avoided more strict than *=destination, even when there is no other way to reach a target? cheers, Martin