Re: [OSM-talk] Ensuring Cyclewyays/Footways are routable?
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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ensuring Cyclewyays/Footways are routable?
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=51.103306lng=-114.079413zoom=15directions=51.10050375773113,-114.0750789642334,51.10594712658125,-114.08280372619629travel=footstyleId=3697 Both foot and cycle routes take a long way around (car goes even further thought an 'access=bus' section). The data looks good. The car route probably is using the faster route due to the secondary roads. How often is the route database updated? Cycle way through path was last edited around the 19th June, but is not used in the route. It is normally updated weekly. We are currently using data from 2009-06-17. Also in realality the park is also routeable, one could just walk up Trafford Ave and over a bit of grass. Is it possible to tag so this can happen? You need to add a footpath over the grass. You can only route where there is connectivity, or there is bad data. And on this one, it routes the bike slightly further: http://maps.cloudmade.com/?lat=51.118516lng=-114.048493zoom=16directions=51.11576782135306,-114.04864311218262,51.12080533765644,-114.04978036880493travel=bicyclestyleId=1714 If the start/end points are moved slightly it permits foot/cycles to go both ways so it's not a tagging thing. What's going on? It will be a combination of the weightings of the types of road, and the distance. Shaun Cheers, Mungewell. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ensuring Cyclewyays/Footways are routable?
2009/7/2 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: 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 psv=designated into account instead of access=bus. cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[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=51.103306lng=-114.079413zoom=15directions=51.10050375773113,-114.0750789642334,51.10594712658125,-114.08280372619629travel=footstyleId=3697 Both foot and cycle routes take a long way around (car goes even further thought an 'access=bus' section). How often is the route database updated? Cycle way through path was last edited around the 19th June, but is not used in the route. Also in realality the park is also routeable, one could just walk up Trafford Ave and over a bit of grass. Is it possible to tag so this can happen? And on this one, it routes the bike slightly further: http://maps.cloudmade.com/?lat=51.118516lng=-114.048493zoom=16directions=51.11576782135306,-114.04864311218262,51.12080533765644,-114.04978036880493travel=bicyclestyleId=1714 If the start/end points are moved slightly it permits foot/cycles to go both ways so it's not a tagging thing. What's going on? Cheers, Mungewell. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
