Nice to have routing on the main site, but.... This has revealed quite a big nasty that has happened in Hampshire recently!
I've tried some foot routing out and it appears that someone has done a mass addition of access=private to large numbers of ROWs in Hampshire. See http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=50.96550%2C-1.17800%3B50.96090%2C-1.18780#map=17/50.96265/-1.18302 for instance It should be routing you along the footpath, instead it routes along the road. Not sure who's done this but will investigate later - I sincerely hope it was a mistake!!! Nick ________________________________________ From: si...@mungewell.org <si...@mungewell.org> Sent: 17 February 2015 22:45 To: christian.pietz...@googlemail.com Cc: Talk Openstreetmap Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Routing on osm.org > OSRM and other routers won't use the highway you want it to use because > its > under construction in the OSM data ( > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27593150#map=13/50.4550/-113.8127&layers=Q). Ahh, that would probably do it. I have removed 'construction=trunk' and 'motor_vehicle=no' tags as they are incorrect. Will check back in a few days to see if it fixed the routing problem. > Most often it's not router but a data problem. Absolutely... the data is to blame! The point I was making is that routing often highlights that there is an issue, maybe a quick link to add a note (or something) that local/expert mappers could validate would be of benefit. Cheers, Simon (who really should pay more TLC to mapping in his area) _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
