On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 08:51:45PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > All that said, you are basically right in your complaint. As I see it, > routers should allow a single transition from access=yes to > access=private (but not back) for roads that are near the destination, > basically assuming that if you ask for a route, you have permission.
This is wrong - access=private means no router can determin whether
you as user may AT ALL use that road. So all routers drop roads
with access=private from their graph. No way to use it. This
is IMHO the correct way of treating *=private and in accordance
with the wiki.
If you want usage of roads only on the tail use *=destination.
Even that is broken with most routers as they only increase
cost per distance on those ways which is wrong as it will still
use that roads as through roads if the alternative cost is high
enough. And there are even more artefacts by solving *=destination
by cost per distance.
I fight against excessive use of *=private in Germany for a long time
but people are confused and mix up ownership, destination and
are pretty quick with issuing access=private on roads.
I am analysing data for parts of Germany for problems with that
by using the nearest api call with OSRM and listing OSM Addresses
with more than e.g. 100m to the next legal road. Sometimes the nearest
road is on the other side of the railway, river or whatever.
Using access=private means -> broken - Same is with excessive use
of track.
The problem here is NOT the routers who drop access=private.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"OsmAnd" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to osmand+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osmand/20200406212318.4lhs4k5tace2hrjb%40pax.zz.de.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
