[Routing] Funny gosmore artifact

[Philip Homburg]

In your letter dated Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:35:12 +0200 you wrote:
>Philip Homburg wrote:
>> Consistent, yes. Whether it makes any sense, I don't know. Allowing pedestri
>ans
>> 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.

It's not clear to me how much thought went into that default access
restrictions page. 

I wonder how many 'casual' mappers are going to take the trouble to add
'food=yes' to all cyclepaths, just because some random person they don't
know decided on a weird default?

>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.

I don't really like the user interface of gosmore (under Unix). Your website
is much more appealing. And it has the advantage that you can point random
people to a website.

>> 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.

I find the source of gosmore very hard to understand. So it may take a while
before I will be able to do anything useful.