<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Ludwig,<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAvpVPAOPOyYe=awJtiEOX3NwCOq4Oz8RNhOihthJcEH9U6N_Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Thanks for the reply. <br>
<br>
</div>
Just so that I understand the trade-off: basically, the
intention is to exclude areas that would not allow a
meaningful routing anyway (apart from its own
subnetwork) and the price to lower this value is a size
question for the resulting routing files?<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The difference of the size is negligible. It is just about
meaningful routing: with several subareas (and there are many!!) the
location lookup ends up more often in that areas and would lead to
"no route found - disconnected areas" errors. E.g. just clicking
into the map or dragging the flags would result a lot more into that
errors.<br>
<br>
To really fix this problem one would have to find out if it is an
island with water around (then it should be routable regardless of
the number of nodes) or if it is a part of a city or other terrain
(like forestry/private streets/...).<br>
<br>
No easy idea how to do that, but the configurable option now could
make everyone happy.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAvpVPAOPOyYe=awJtiEOX3NwCOq4Oz8RNhOihthJcEH9U6N_Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>I am not really familiar with the routing algorithm, I
am just amazed that it works so well and so fast! <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks! ... and it is just the beginning ;)<br>
Especially on Android there are a lot more things to do!<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Peter.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAvpVPAOPOyYe=awJtiEOX3NwCOq4Oz8RNhOihthJcEH9U6N_Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 24 September 2013 15:45,
Peter K <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:peathal@yahoo.de" target="_blank">peathal@yahoo.de</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi
Ludwig,<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Hi Peter,<br>
><br>
> fiddling with that parameter seems to do
the trick. I managed to get<br>
> routing to work for Naxos with a value of
500, but had to drop this<br>
> further to 200 to get routing on some even
smaller islands.<br>
<br>
</div>
Good and bad ;(!<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> For me at this point the question is what
the motivation is to exlude<br>
> certain areas at all. Even if this was a
private area (behind a<br>
> barrier) why exclude it from roiuting?<br>
<br>
</div>
Because you won't find a route if one coordinate
of the route is inside<br>
and one is outside. E.g. if you would search
'Dresden' (or a lot more<br>
locations like 'moskau' etc) the GPS coordinate
would be exactly within<br>
such an area and you won't find a route. Also
routing within<br>
private/restricted/forestry areas is in my opinion
not really useful for<br>
a public site. Additionally there are OSM bugs
which leads to those<br>
subnetworks.<br>
<br>
Do you have another idea? One could try to solve
this via a changed<br>
routing or location-lookup but this looks ugly to
me.<br>
<br>
I've lowered this value to 200 and made it
configurable via<br>
prepare.minNetworkSize:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/86"
target="_blank">https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/86</a><br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Peter.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>