[OSM-talk] Routing on osm.org

[Nick Whitelegg]

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 <lists at atownsend.org.uk>
Sent: 18 February 2015 11:51
To: talk at openstreetmap.org
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
talk at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk