I'll give a try with your proposal,  I believe it might fix the routing however if I got it right, tunnels will not be visible as per my 1st email attempt.

On the other side, related to your comment "with your latest rules, secondary highway with tunnel finishes processing of this object", I believe this was my intention: up to res 21 I'd like the line to appear as 0x04, from resolution 22 it should appear as 0x11 if a tunnel, otherwise 0x04 - no further processing is needed. Could you pls let me know why the reasoning is not correct?

Thanks!

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Andrzej Popowski <popej@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
Hi Enrico,

with your latest rules, secondary highway with tunnel finishes processing of this object. Try this:

highway=secondary & ( network=e-road | int_ref=* ) [0x04 resolution 18-19 continue]
 highway=secondary & tunnel=yes [0x11 resolution 22 continue]
highway=secondary  [0x04 road_class=2 road_speed=3 resolution 20]

Don't make tunnels routable, since you will get 2 routable roads at the same place, which probably is not needed, unless you add different avoidances to each. Probably would be better to use a line outside routable lines (not lines 0x01 - 0x13).


--
Best regards,
Andrzej


_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev