[OSM-talk-be] integrated Routeplanner GraphHopper on osm.org strange result
On the bridge that was closed since march 2018 ... tag was set to access=no routeplanner selector bicycle goes true it, on foot detour, car correct impossible highway=cycleway Is there a place to report this behavior ? https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=51.12521%2C2.75417%3B51.12481%2C2.75500#map=18/51.12498/2.75495&layers=N ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] integrated Routeplanner GraphHopper on osm.org strange result
Hi Jakka, I suppose it is related to this issue: https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/1215 (that is the correct place to post errors of this kind I think) I think Graphopper allows this to happen because NOT doing so would be a bigger error. It often happens that the authority that defines the cycle route does not communicate with the authority that defines access for bicylces, and then you get situations where you can't drive into the street you have to ride into. Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/202425978#map=18/50.75460/3.72778 I would suggest reclassifying the road to highway=construction + construction=cycleway. Given the description in the Note, that seems to be more correct than the current tagging. -- Joost Schouppe ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] integrated Routeplanner GraphHopper on osm.org strange result
Tag addapted to highway=construction + construction=cycleway I follow up the results. Op 1/08/2018 om 18:12 schreef joost schouppe: Hi Jakka, I suppose it is related to this issue: https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/1215 (that is the correct place to post errors of this kind I think) I think Graphopper allows this to happen because NOT doing so would be a bigger error. It often happens that the authority that defines the cycle route does not communicate with the authority that defines access for bicylces, and then you get situations where you can't drive into the street you have to ride into. Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/202425978#map=18/50.75460/3.72778 I would suggest reclassifying the road to highway=construction + construction=cycleway. Given the description in the Note, that seems to be more correct than the current tagging. -- Joost Schouppe ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] integrated Routeplanner GraphHopper on osm.org strange result
Want the controle other locations of the strange behavior of routeplanner. What the overpass code for the full access=no without something else like foot=yes or bicycle=yes ecetera ? Op 2/08/2018 om 10:06 schreef Jakka: Tag addapted to highway=construction + construction=cycleway I follow up the results. Op 1/08/2018 om 18:12 schreef joost schouppe: Hi Jakka, I suppose it is related to this issue: https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/1215 (that is the correct place to post errors of this kind I think) I think Graphopper allows this to happen because NOT doing so would be a bigger error. It often happens that the authority that defines the cycle route does not communicate with the authority that defines access for bicylces, and then you get situations where you can't drive into the street you have to ride into. Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/202425978#map=18/50.75460/3.72778 I would suggest reclassifying the road to highway=construction + construction=cycleway. Given the description in the Note, that seems to be more correct than the current tagging. -- Joost Schouppe ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] integrated Routeplanner GraphHopper on osm.org strange result
> What the overpass code for the full access=no without something else > like foot=yes or bicycle=yes ecetera ? > As simple as this: way["access"="no"][!"foot"] The !foot part means "there is no foot=* tag present". Example: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/AJy Of course, nodes can also have an effect on routing. For example, you could add the code below to query barrier nodes which have an access tag but not a foot tag. node["barrier"]["access"][!"foot"] -- Joost Schouppe ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
