[Talk-GB] Composite mapping (OSM and OS, PRoWs etc)

[Richard Fairhurst]

Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> it would be interesting to know what routers make of highway=no.

From
https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/blob/master/profiles/foot.lua:

  elseif access and access_tag_whitelist[access] then
      -- unknown way, but valid access tag
    result.forward_speed = walking_speed
    result.backward_speed = walking_speed

i.e. OSRM's foot profile will route over an unknown highway value if there
is a valid access tag. (The bike profile is similar.) This isn't necessarily
a bad thing - it's a fallback for old tags like highway=minor or
highway=byway, and perhaps for typos too.

I'm not enormously comfortable with highway=no - it's a bit like the justly
discouraged amenity=pub, disused=yes. The designation= tag should be enough
on its own for something that isn't actually a highway on the ground. (Maybe
one could invent a namespaced highway tag but I can't immediately think of
anything suitable...)

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Composite-mapping-OSM-and-OS-PRoWs-etc-tp5881904p5882202.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.