[OSM-talk] Ensuring Cyclewyays/Footways are routable?

2009-07-01 Thread simon
I had a little play with Cloudmade's routing stuff and it wasn't quite working for me. http://maps.cloudmade.com/?lat=51.103306&lng=-114.079413&zoom=15&directions=51.10050375773113,-114.0750789642334,51.10594712658125,-114.08280372619629&travel=foot&styleId=3697 Both foot and cycle routes tak

Re: [OSM-talk] Ensuring Cyclewyays/Footways are routable?

2009-07-02 Thread Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
enstreetmap.org >Subject: [OSM-talk] Ensuring Cyclewyays/Footways are routable? > >I had a little play with Cloudmade's routing stuff and it wasn't quite >working for me. > >http://maps.cloudmade.com/?lat=51.103306&lng=- >114.079413&zoom=15&direction

Re: [OSM-talk] Ensuring Cyclewyays/Footways are routable?

2009-07-02 Thread Tobias Knerr
> Both foot and cycle routes take a long way around (car goes even further > thought an 'access=bus' section). "access=bus"? That tag doesn't match the usual vehicletype=usageright structure, so why would you expect it to be recognized? Tobias Knerr __

Re: [OSM-talk] Ensuring Cyclewyays/Footways are routable?

2009-07-02 Thread Shaun McDonald
On 2 Jul 2009, at 00:54, si...@mungewell.org wrote: I had a little play with Cloudmade's routing stuff and it wasn't quite working for me. http://maps.cloudmade.com/?lat=51.103306&lng=-114.079413&zoom=15&directions=51.10050375773113,-114.0750789642334,51.10594712658125,-114.08280372619629&

Re: [OSM-talk] Ensuring Cyclewyays/Footways are routable?

2009-07-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2009/7/2 Tobias Knerr : >> Both foot and cycle routes take a long way around (car goes even further >> thought an 'access=bus' section). > > "access=bus"? That tag doesn't match the usual vehicletype=usageright > structure, so why would you expect it to be recognized? > you could take psv=yes or p