On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 07:29:45AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>The harder question in Felix's case is that, if I followed, he would
>like to not ride on a road if it has an associated official cycleway,
>because one can't, but if they are separate ways then maybe that's
>tagged bicyle=no, and that works ok.
Yes, because in Germany it is compulsory to use a cycleway where one
exists next to a 'car road'. Only with highway=footway+bicycle=yes you
have some choice.
In Finland, cycleway use is not enforced, except maybe on highway=trunk
roads. Use of cycleway is somewhat optional even according to the
regulations (if short distance and it is safer to not use the cycleway).
AFAIU, the Vienna convention mandates cycleway use only if it is a
segregated cycleway, not a non-segregated foot/cycleway.
The problem with setting bicycle=no on the 'car highway' is that it may
break bicycle routing.
Apparently, the Edge 705 routing is ignoring any cycleways, except those
that are within about 5km of the origin or the destination. I have
observed similar shortcuts in the OsmAnd offline routing. Therefore, it
might be better to somehow associate the cycleway with the adjacent
highway, instead of adding bicycle=no.
For example, there are some sections of the highway 45 near my home
tagged as bicycle=no (which is OK, because the traffic sign says so). My
Garmin Edge 705 would prefer to make a 100km+ detour using some tertiary
roads when routing to a destination that is less than 100km away, if the
best route would be along highway 45.
So far, I think that the best option is to treat
yes/permissive/designated/official in the same way. That is, either
preserve or delete all of these values of access=* and basically only
leave the access=no|private and access=destination untouched.
Marko
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
