Ah right. I wasn't saying GraphHopper's wrong BTW... I was more questioning the wisdom of adding "access=private" to rights of way. But that's probably another discussion for the talk-gb list...
Nick ________________________________________ From: SomeoneElse <[email protected]> Sent: 18 February 2015 11:51 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Routing on osm.org On 18/02/2015 11:38, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > 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 > See also https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/41053/prow-tagging-england-wales In this case graphhopper's "correct", because http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4453997 does not have "foot=yes" on it, but instead "access:foot=yes". It used to have foot=designated on it until 3 years ago. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
