Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

use_restrictions vs. use_turn_restrictions #808

Closed
lonvia opened this issue Nov 24, 2013 · 6 comments
Closed

use_restrictions vs. use_turn_restrictions #808

lonvia opened this issue Nov 24, 2013 · 6 comments

Comments

@lonvia
Copy link
Contributor

lonvia commented Nov 24, 2013

Code and profile don't seem to agree what the turn restriction parameter should be called. All profiles refer to it as use_restrictions (e.g. car.lua) while Extractor/BaseParser.cpp looks for use_turn_restrictions.

@DennisOSRM
Copy link
Collaborator

Good catch. Will change that

@emiltin
Copy link
Contributor

emiltin commented Nov 25, 2013

wonder why this haven't been caught by the tests?

@lonvia
Copy link
Contributor Author

lonvia commented Nov 25, 2013

Bad grepping on my part. The foot profile has defined use_turn_restrictions and that is the one that gets tested.

@DennisOSRM
Copy link
Collaborator

This is not a functional bug, but inconsistent naming, right?

@lonvia
Copy link
Contributor Author

lonvia commented Nov 26, 2013

Yes. If the variable is not defined in the profile, turn restrictions default to being enabled.

@DennisOSRM
Copy link
Collaborator

ok, thanks for this piece of info.

DennisOSRM added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 6, 2013
DennisOSRM added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 8, 2013
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants