Hi WanMil, WanMil wrote

...

Hi all,

looking at the 4 node restrictions I think I found a general bug in mkgmap:

Both with polish (.mp) format and with OSM data we compute the routing nodes for which the restriction shoud be applied. In a second step we compute the arcs between these nodes. In this 2nd step we ignore the information about roads given with TRAFFROADS in polish format or the from,via, and to roles in OSM data.

In the mkgmap algo, we just select the first direct arc (means: peace of road) between the nodes. If the nodes are connected with multiple arcs on different roads, this probably is too lazy, although it will not fail very often.

I have to rewrite most of the code reg. restrictions to correct this..

Gerd

Hi Gerd,

can you give an example?

Thanks! WanMil

I noticed the possible error by looking at the code, I don't have an example. The probem may appear wherever two nodes are connected with different roads. Assume road r1 with nodes a,b, and c and road r2 with nodes b and c, both are connected to road r3 with nodes c and d. A restriction exists with from=r2 and to=r3 and via=c. Depending on the ids of the roads, mkgmap might create a wrong restriction using road r1 and r3. Gerd -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/mkgmap-and-route-restrictions-tp5800402p58004... Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Hi Nick, I can't reproduce the result with r3116 and default style. The first part of road Highlands Park http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20138647 is forbidden for all vehicles and pedestrian! The default style doesn't evaluate tag designation=* I think that should be changed. Besides that I see no restriction relation in that area, so it is also not related to that. Gerd

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:23:27 -0700 From: osm@pinns.co.uk To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] mkgmap and route restrictions

Hi Gerd

This might be related:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.60751/-3.60074

If I take the maroon route I am routed correctly via Highlands Park- which is private but designation=foot In fact its parsed correctly as it shows my blue walking sign half way. However, if I click on Colway Lane and finish at the top left (green route), it seems to ignore foot=designation and takes a much longer route

www.pinns.co.uk/osm/images/private.jpg

HTH

nick

-- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/mkgmap-and-route-restrictions-tp5800402p58004... Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

Hi Nick, yes, if your style allows pedestrians for designation= public_footpath ways. With r3116 and the default style and original data I see the same long way for both start points. When I add the tag foot=yes to way 20138647 I see the same short route for both start points. Gerd

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 03:28:10 -0700 From: osm@pinns.co.uk To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] mkgmap and route restrictions

Hi Gerd

yes, I didn't use the default style - apologies for having lead you up the 'garden path'

It does have 'designation= public_footpath' which should allow pedestrians?

Thanks for your Time

r Nick

-- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/mkgmap-and-route-restrictions-tp5800402p58005... Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

Thanks both of you for putting me right ! r Nick -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/mkgmap-and-route-restrictions-tp5800402p58005... Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.