Florian Lohoff <f...@zz.de> writes: > Not just deprefer. Without user consent there should be NO usage of > steps AT ALL.
I can see that view, but there is another which is that if you want to get from here to there on a bike, sometimes you need to carry it. Surely it's better to do that 10m on steps than ride an extra 100 km, for almost everyone, maybe everyone. By that logic bike routes would never take ferries either. I meant deprefer in a very serious way, sort of 10m of steps equivalent to maybe somewhere 2-5km of cycling. > Which would be inline with the osm wiki which says > "access=no/foot=yes" as implicit defaults. In OSM, typically physical construction and access are kept somewhat separated. I was assuming this was true, and should have checked. It's not clear to me whether carrying a bike falls under foot access, but given that default, I would say that steps should indeed be treated as access=no for bicycle routing. So I believe that osmand should be changed to treat steps as unusable for bicycle by default. > But still using a rail should be an option to select for the routing > profile not just assume that aunt tilly can carry her 30kg ebike up > steep steps on a rail. There's another issue which is that a "30 kg ebike" is not necessarily a "bicycle" depending on where you are. But there's alawys more complexity in routing lurking. -- 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/rmi1rkeejtl.fsf%40s1.lexort.com.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
