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
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
> 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
__
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&
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
5 matches
Mail list logo