Basecamp, mkgmap and bicycle routing
Hi, I'm using Basecamp 4.2.2 with a routable gmapsupp.img generated by mkgmap r2659 and the default style. When calculating a route using the "bicycling" profile Basecamp is trying to route me through a highway which are explicitly marked with foot=no, sidewalk=no, bicycle=no, cycleway=no. When using the "walking" profile the highway is avoided. Does somebody know if this is due to: 1. mkgmap not generating the proper RouteParam attributes (unlikely?) 2. Basecamp not respecting bicycle restrictions in RouteParam I saw a lot of complaints about Basecamp in this list, so I'm suspecting it's due to reason 2 above, but it would be nice to get confirmation from somebody else who knows better. If Basecamp is not supposed to be broken, and somebody can help me investigating this, then I can generate and post a link to a small test map that reproduces this issue. Thanks a lot, Leonardo.
Hi Leonardo, Reason 2 it is. bicycle=no / foot=no is not respected by Basecamp anymore. Instead, in the bicycle profile Garmin has turned by default the carpool avoidance is turned on. This affects all roads with the OSM tags access=no or motorcar=no (routing is blocked) This means that you need to uncheck carpool avoidance in the bicycle activity or use another activity (but then routing over motorways are still likely because bicycle=no is not respected). Avoiding interstate highways isnt a good choice because in the latest version 4.2.2 routing over tile borders will be broken. The only solution is making all roads that are not accesible for cycling not routable. This I have done with the Openfietsmap (Lite) style: http://code.google.com/p/mkgmap-style-sheets/source/browse/#svn%2Ftrunk%2Fst... You can download the maps at http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl (worldwide)
"Leonardo Brondani Schenkel" wrote: I'm using Basecamp 4.2.2 with a routable gmapsupp.img generated by mkgmap r2659 and the default style. When calculating a route using the "bicycling" profile Basecamp is trying to route me through a highway which are explicitly marked with foot=no, sidewalk=no, bicycle=no, cycleway=no. When using the "walking" profile the highway is avoided.
Does somebody know if this is due to: 1. mkgmap not generating the proper RouteParam attributes (unlikely?) 2. Basecamp not respecting bicycle restrictions in RouteParam
I saw a lot of complaints about Basecamp in this list, so I'm suspecting it's due to reason 2 above, but it would be nice to get confirmation from somebody else who knows better.
If Basecamp is not supposed to be broken, and somebody can help me investigating this, then I can generate and post a link to a small test map that reproduces this issue.
Thanks a lot, Leonardo. _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://lists.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
On 06/08/2013 23:10, Minko wrote:
Instead, in the bicycle profile Garmin has turned by default the carpool avoidance is turned on. This affects all roads with the OSM tags access=no or motorcar=no (routing is blocked) This means that you need to uncheck carpool avoidance in the bicycle activity or use another activity (but then routing over motorways are still likely because bicycle=no is not respected). Avoiding interstate highways isnt a good choice because in the latest version 4.2.2 routing over tile borders will be broken.
I'm not sure if I understood what you mean. In my Basecamp the checkbox is checked and disabled (greyed out) for the bicycling profile so it's impossible to uncheck it.
The only solution is making all roads that are not accesible for cycling not routable. This I have done with the Openfietsmap (Lite) style: http://code.google.com/p/mkgmap-style-sheets/source/browse/#svn%2Ftrunk%2Fst...
You can download the maps at http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl (worldwide)
I am aware of your Openfietsmap style; since you mentioned it I would like to seize the opportunity to thank you for your great work on it. The reason I am not using it is because I was playing around with mkgmap and I was investigating the possibility of making a single map that can be used for: walking, bicycling (the most important), and driving. I made a local Mercurial repository for my own style and I pulled the default mkgmap style, the 'world' style from garmin.openstreetmap.nl, and your openfietsmap style (all from a local Mercurial repository converted from Subversion) so I could merge and inspect the diffs between them. Unfortunately this whole idea does not seem to be viable, unless my eTrex 20 behaves differently and does actually respects the road restrictions. If I understood your approach correctly, the only way to achieve this in practice is to have a separate routable map for each activity, and the non-car maps "cheat" by working around Garmin's routing quirks and playing around with the line types, road classes, speed classes, road surface, etc. The GPS is always left in car mode and the right map has to be turned on (and the others off) when changing activities. Is this correct? Thanks for the quick reply, Leonardo.
Leonardo wrote:
I'm not sure if I understood what you mean. In my Basecamp the checkbox is checked and disabled (greyed out) for the bicycling profile so it's impossible to uncheck it.
Yes thats a problem. In Basecamp, you can only uncheck it by selecting the activity to "none", this is only possible after you have made a route. On your Etrex it should be possible to unckeck it in the bicycle routing preferences, but on my Oregon 600 you can't.
If I understood your approach correctly, the only way to achieve this in practice is to have a separate routable map for each activity, and the non-car maps "cheat" by working around Garmin's routing quirks and playing around with the line types, road classes, speed classes, road surface, etc. The GPS is always left in car mode and the right map has to be turned on (and the others off) when changing activities. Is this correct?
Unfortunately yes, for each activity you now need a separate map or stick with the old units / firmware / Mapsource. Maybe hiking and cycling can be combined, but in my part of the world (NL's) cycling and car driving can't. I'm afraid Garmin is aware of this or even care about it.
On 7 August 2013 09:39, Minko <ligfietser@online.nl> wrote:
If I understood your approach correctly, the only way to achieve this in practice is to have a separate routable map for each activity, and the non-car maps "cheat" by working around Garmin's routing quirks and playing around with the line types, road classes, speed classes, road surface, etc. The GPS is always left in car mode and the right map has to be turned on (and the others off) when changing activities. Is this correct?
Unfortunately yes, for each activity you now need a separate map or stick with the old units / firmware / Mapsource. Maybe hiking and cycling can be combined, but in my part of the world (NL's) cycling and car driving can't. I'm afraid Garmin is aware of this or even care about it.
OK. I don't think it is a complete disaster to have different maps; it's just that this is my first Garmin device and I was a bit surprised about the, let's say, underwhelming routing implementation since those devices seem to be so popular. Do I really need totally different gmapsupp.img files or is it possible to have a generic/shared visible layer but different routing layers on top of it? Can routing information be totally invisible (with/without custom .TYP)? (I have searched the list, but I only found old posts, and I'm not sure if they're totally relevant for new Basecamp/new devices.) I read something about a new NT format which is not reverse-engineered yet. Do you know if new Garmin devices/software respect the access limitations when using this new format (probably impossible to say if nobody understands the format yet)? I was wondering, and this is purely conjecture from my part, if Garmin deliberately made the maps in the "old-style" format less useful in order to reduce competition from free maps such as the ones generated from OSM data.
Hi,
is it possible to have a generic/shared visible layer but different routing layers on top of it? Can routing information be totally invisible (with/without custom.TYP)?
Yes, you can make that kind of map. I have tested transparent and invisible routing layer with non-routable background map. To make map invisible you have to use custom TYP. I also have made routing layer transparent. -- Best regards, Andrzej
Using this for a couple of years now. Non-routable basemap, with an invisible car and bike routing layer on top. Deactivate whichever routing layer is not needed (works easiest with profile switching on my orgeon). Address index is in the bike layer, and is searchable even if the layer is not active. Am 07.08.2013 22:58, schrieb Andrzej Popowski:
Hi,
is it possible to have a generic/shared visible layer but different routing layers on top of it? Can routing information be totally invisible (with/without custom.TYP)?
Yes, you can make that kind of map.
I have tested transparent and invisible routing layer with non-routable background map. To make map invisible you have to use custom TYP. I also have made routing layer transparent.
Address index is in the bike layer, and is searchable even if the layer is not active.
Obvious configuration would be to put search index in non-routable map. There is some problem in mkgmap, which doesn't create index without routing. I think index could be available if option --net is used, but this didn't work for me. My solution is to create full routable map and send it from Mapsource to GPS without routing information. -- Best regards, Andrzej
i tried that, but i didn't work. Am 08.08.2013 11:20, schrieb Andrzej Popowski:
Address index is in the bike layer, and is searchable even if the layer is not active.
Obvious configuration would be to put search index in non-routable map. There is some problem in mkgmap, which doesn't create index without routing. I think index could be available if option --net is used, but this didn't work for me.
My solution is to create full routable map and send it from Mapsource to GPS without routing information.
Although we don't quite know it's structure , it appears EACH polyline includes information about the various routing activities ( hiking,mountainbiking etc) it has been given . Interestingly, there seems to be 8 routing types , with sub routing types up to 3 sofar detected. ie walking =4 and 'biking'=5 & hiking 41 -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Basecamp-mkgmap-and-bicycle-routing-tp5772718... Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
participants (5)
-
Andrzej Popowski -
Leonardo Brondani Schenkel -
michael lohr -
Minko -
nwillink