Hi Steve, I'd like to change the code for the --link-pois-to-ways option so that POI with access restrictions (e.g. barriers or gates) are converted to route restrictions instead of short way segments with limited access as this doesn't represent the real meaning of the POI. My problem: Current implementation doesn't support route restrictions that apply to pedestrians or emergency. On the other hand I found this link: wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Map_On_Garmin/NOD_Subfile_Format#Table_C It claims that the exceptions for pedestrian and emergency is stored in the header bytes. On the other hand, it also claims that this header contains a number of ways, and I don't see that we write this. I guess mkgmap writes another format of the table C. Do you think this can be changed without much work? Gerd
Hi, okay, I think I understand now better. mkgmap r2889 writes all route restrictions so that they prohibit pedestrians and emergency vehicles. RouteRestriction contains this: HEADER = 0x004005; If I change that to 0x004605 (as the wiki suggests) routing is allowed for pedestrians and emergency. So, we can control whether restrictions apply to pedestrians and emergency. Now I wonder if the old behaviour was intended? I think no. Both emergency and pedestrians can ignore signs like "no left turn", can't they? Gerd GerdP wrote
Hi Steve,
I'd like to change the code for the --link-pois-to-ways option so that POI with access restrictions (e.g. barriers or gates) are converted to route restrictions instead of short way segments with limited access as this doesn't represent the real meaning of the POI.
My problem: Current implementation doesn't support route restrictions that apply to pedestrians or emergency. On the other hand I found this link: wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Map_On_Garmin/NOD_Subfile_Format#Table_C
It claims that the exceptions for pedestrian and emergency is stored in the header bytes. On the other hand, it also claims that this header contains a number of ways, and I don't see that we write this.
I guess mkgmap writes another format of the table C. Do you think this can be changed without much work?
Gerd
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@.org
-- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Route-Restrictions-tp5790369p5790416.html Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 12/20/13 10:20 AM, GerdP wrote:
Hi,
okay, I think I understand now better. mkgmap r2889 writes all route restrictions so that they prohibit pedestrians and emergency vehicles. RouteRestriction contains this: HEADER = 0x004005; If I change that to 0x004605 (as the wiki suggests) routing is allowed for pedestrians and emergency.
So, we can control whether restrictions apply to pedestrians and emergency.
Now I wonder if the old behaviour was intended? I think no. Both emergency and pedestrians can ignore signs like "no left turn", can't they?
it's something that can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but i looked it up for New York state and the vehicle and traffic code there explicitly gives emergency vehicles engaged in a response permission to ignore turn restrictions and traffic control devices. but it's something you'd have to look up for each jurisdiction. when i set up no-u-turn restrictions for motorways in the US, i always add the except=psv tag so that it's made explicit. richard
Hi Richard, please check: mkgmap treats except=psv like execpt=bus, and I think that's correct. Gerd Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:47:25 -0500 From: rwelty@averillpark.net To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Route Restrictions On 12/20/13 10:20 AM, GerdP wrote:
Hi,
okay, I think I understand now better. mkgmap r2889 writes all route restrictions so that they prohibit pedestrians and emergency vehicles. RouteRestriction contains this: HEADER = 0x004005; If I change that to 0x004605 (as the wiki suggests) routing is allowed for pedestrians and emergency.
So, we can control whether restrictions apply to pedestrians and emergency.
Now I wonder if the old behaviour was intended? I think no. Both emergency and pedestrians can ignore signs like "no left turn", can't they?
it's something that can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but i looked it up for New York state and the vehicle and traffic code there explicitly gives emergency vehicles engaged in a response permission to ignore turn restrictions and traffic control devices. but it's something you'd have to look up for each jurisdiction. when i set up no-u-turn restrictions for motorways in the US, i always add the except=psv tag so that it's made explicit. richard _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
participants (3)
-
Gerd Petermann -
GerdP
-
Richard Welty