map detects barriers like gate as passable by motor vehicle when it is only restricted to pedestrians
Hi, Just want to share a report from one of the gps map users. In this example, the gate blocks any motor vehicle from going to grasshopper street and spider intersection, and to crispina. This gate is only passable by pedestrian. If the destination is somewhere crispina, the correct route should be through caterpillar avenue and then left on spider street. Here is a sample route with gate as barrier: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.44558&lon=120.985888&zoom=18&layers=B00... The calculated route in roadtrip is here: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4059/4441971869_397ce8bd84_o.jpg I'm inclined to think that this is a data problem (the gate should explicitly define that is only usefule for pedestrians). I can't find the correct tagging for this one at the moment. If such tag exist, is it supported by mkgmap? -- cheers, maning ------------------------------------------------------ "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 02:06:12PM +0800, maning sambale wrote:
I'm inclined to think that this is a data problem (the gate should explicitly define that is only usefule for pedestrians). I can't find the correct tagging for this one at the moment. If such tag exist, is it supported by mkgmap?
It is this gate, isn't it? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/659516319 It has access=private, foot=yes. Maybe mkgmap is being too liberal about the access=private (treating it like access=yes), or its logic gets confused about the controversial access keys (access=private would imply foot=private, which contradicts foot=yes). What if you remove the access=private or add motorcar=no motorcycle=no? (And while you are at it, add bicycle=yes or bicycle=no too, as appropriate.) Marko
Ok added, will test the compiled map later. Thanks. On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Marko Mäkelä <marko.makela@iki.fi> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 02:06:12PM +0800, maning sambale wrote:
I'm inclined to think that this is a data problem (the gate should explicitly define that is only usefule for pedestrians). I can't find the correct tagging for this one at the moment. If such tag exist, is it supported by mkgmap?
It is this gate, isn't it? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/659516319 It has access=private, foot=yes.
Maybe mkgmap is being too liberal about the access=private (treating it like access=yes), or its logic gets confused about the controversial access keys (access=private would imply foot=private, which contradicts foot=yes). What if you remove the access=private or add motorcar=no motorcycle=no? (And while you are at it, add bicycle=yes or bicycle=no too, as appropriate.)
Marko _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
-- cheers, maning ------------------------------------------------------ "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:06:17 +0200, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 02:06:12PM +0800, maning sambale wrote:
I'm inclined to think that this is a data problem (the gate should explicitly define that is only usefule for pedestrians). I can't find the correct tagging for this one at the moment. If such tag exist, is it supported by mkgmap?
It is this gate, isn't it? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/659516319 It has access=private, foot=yes.
Maybe mkgmap is being too liberal about the access=private (treating it like access=yes), or its logic gets confused about the controversial access keys (access=private would imply foot=private, which contradicts foot=yes). What if you remove the access=private or add motorcar=no motorcycle=no? (And while you are at it, add bicycle=yes or bicycle=no too, as appropriate.)
I'm curious how mkgmap handles "permissive," "private," and "destination" access types myself.
Hi Paul,
I'm curious how mkgmap handles "permissive," "private," and "destination" access types myself.
'permissive' is considered to be the same as 'yes' and 'designated'. 'private' is considered to be the same as 'no'. 'destination' routing on a way(s) should stop the gps routing through those ways unless the destination is within those ways or there is no other route to the destination. Note that destination routing only seems to have an effect on motorcar/motorbike routing - it doesn't appear to effect the other vehicle types. Mark
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:21:56 +0000, Mark Burton wrote:
Hi Paul,
I'm curious how mkgmap handles "permissive," "private," and "destination" access types myself.
'permissive' is considered to be the same as 'yes' and 'designated'.
'private' is considered to be the same as 'no'.
Hmm, I would have thought "permissive" would have been the same as "destination" but with preference given to permissive routes as a tiebreaker. Does it still route down a "no" or "private" if there's not any other option?
Hi Paul,
Hmm, I would have thought "permissive" would have been the same as "destination" but with preference given to permissive routes as a tiebreaker.
The Garmin doesn't do "permissive" - it really only does yes or no so the choice is one of: permissive = yes permissive = no permissive is ignored Yonks ago I decided that permissive was more like yes than no so that's how it is treated in mkgmap.
Does it still route down a "no" or "private" if there's not any other option?
I think that's the case but I haven't checked for a long time. Mark
participants (4)
-
maning sambale -
Mark Burton -
Marko Mäkelä -
Paul Johnson