[Routing] Funny gosmore artifact

[Lambertus]

Philip Homburg wrote:
> Consistent, yes. Whether it makes any sense, I don't know. Allowing pedestrians
> on trunk roads be not on cycling paths or on a bridleway doesn't make much
> sense to me.
It may not make sense to you (and neither to me) but this is how things 
are at present. I could ofcourse just set another 'standard' with my 
site but that won't help OSM in general. Having people seriously 
thinking about proper tagging is one of my goals when I started it.

> 
> For local routing (in .nl), I just use a different elemstyles.xml that does
> what I want.
> 
> Unfortunately, I can't do that with 'yournavigation.org' until you publish
> the source.
> 
True but yournavigation.org targets worldwide routing, not just the 
Netherlands. So I can't make everybody happy. What I can do is try to 
follow the current OSM defaults so that everyone can see how well they 
are defined (or not).

You can use your own routing parameters with Gosmore on a PDA or PC if 
yournavigation.org does not suit you. Although I'd rather see an effort 
trying to make OSM tagging standards better. That way everyone will benefit.

> Not that there is any hurry. I first want to have a version of gosmore that
> does what I want when it comes to oneway and cycling.
> 
Are you going to suggest specific improvements or, even better, supply 
patches? Those would be most welcome.