<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Bram,<br>
<br>
there was indeed a deployment problem which is now fixed. But the
cycleway are forcefully avoided and still not taken as you can see
in the examples:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=Amsterdamseweg%2C%206816%2C%20Arnhem%2C%20The%20Netherlands&point=Ruiterstraat%2C%206811CP%2C%20Arnhem%2C%20The%20Netherlands&vehicle=foot&elevation=true&layer=Lyrk">https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=52.004038%2C5.854254&point=51.982713%2C5.908327&vehicle=foot&elevation=true&layer=Lyrk</a><br>
<br>
and your older example:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=51.430789%2C-2.475915&point=51.412966%2C-2.455616&point=51.390744%2C-2.422142&point=51.381853%2C-2.390213&point=51.384022%2C-2.381823&point=51.379656%2C-2.367382&point=51.378585%2C-2.363906&point=51.377647%2C-2.35086&point=51.388361%2C-2.347877&point=51.392351%2C-2.339101&point=51.396742%2C-2.316699&point=51.394011%2C-2.313566&vehicle=foot&elevation=true&layer=TF%20Outdoors">https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=51.430789%2C-2.475915&point=51.412966%2C-2.455616&point=51.390744%2C-2.422142&point=51.381853%2C-2.390213&point=51.384022%2C-2.381823&point=51.379656%2C-2.367382&point=51.378585%2C-2.363906&point=51.377647%2C-2.35086&point=51.388361%2C-2.347877&point=51.392351%2C-2.339101&point=51.396742%2C-2.316699&point=51.394011%2C-2.313566&vehicle=foot&elevation=true&layer=TF%20Outdoors</a><br>
<br>
Even normal streets are taken before the cycleway:<br>
<a
href="https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=51.99045%2C5.888382&point=51.98566%2C5.900216&vehicle=foot&elevation=true&layer=Lyrk">https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=51.99045%2C5.888382&point=51.98566%2C5.900216&vehicle=foot&elevation=true&layer=Lyrk</a><br>
<br>
vs.<br>
<br>
<a
href="https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=51.99045%2C5.888382&point=51.988488%2C5.893779&point=51.98566%2C5.900216&vehicle=foot&elevation=true&layer=Lyrk">https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=51.99045%2C5.888382&point=51.988488%2C5.893779&point=51.98566%2C5.900216&vehicle=foot&elevation=true&layer=Lyrk</a><br>
<br>
That is not good. We need to solve this better (somehow), maybe we
discuss further in the issue?<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/257">https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/257</a><br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Peter<br>
<br>
On 27.01.2015 21:02, Bram Duvigneau wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:54C7EEBA.8040008@bramd.nl" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi,<br>
<br>
Also took me a while to get back to this.<br>
Assuming the new code is live by now, I don't see much
improvements. Take for example this route:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=Amsterdamseweg%2C%206816%2C%20Arnhem%2C%20The%20Netherlands&point=Ruiterstraat%2C%206811CP%2C%20Arnhem%2C%20The%20Netherlands&vehicle=foot&elevation=true&layer=Lyrk">https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=Amsterdamseweg%2C%206816%2C%20Arnhem%2C%20The%20Netherlands&point=Ruiterstraat%2C%206811CP%2C%20Arnhem%2C%20The%20Netherlands&vehicle=foot&elevation=true&layer=Lyrk</a><br>
<br>
The cycling route is 2 KM shorter and is a fine pedestrian route
as well. I guess we need a kind of delta to determine when to
consider the cycling route over the route that prevents
cycleways. I see that this might add complexity to the route
generation and as far as I know is a feature that has not been
implemented.<br>
<br>
It could be that my example is not representative due to mapping
errors. Since I'm totally blind it is not easy to survey the map
and check if everything is mapped correctly. If so, I would be
glad to try some other examples.<br>
<br>
Bram<br>
On 16-1-2015 23:41, Peter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:54B993AA.9020102@gmx.de" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Sorry, took a bit ;). Let me know
if this fixes your problem:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/303">https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/303</a><br>
<br>
should be live in 2 days.<br>
<br>
Peter<br>
<br>
<br>
On 13.11.2014 18:36, Bram Duvigneau wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5464EC1D.8030803@bramd.nl" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hello,<br>
<br>
Of course the situation may be different from region to
region, but I can't think of a cycle way here (Netherlands)
that is not allowed for pedestrians. I also see many streets
with separate cycleways where the sidewalk is next to the
cycleway and the sidewalk is not tagged on the main way, nor
on the cycle way. <br>
<br>
In my experience until now planning local pedestrian routes,
the bike profile always gives a better route then the
pedestrian profile.<br>
<br>
Bram<br>
On 13-11-2014 0:56, Peter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5463F3C5.509@gmx.de" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; ">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hmmh, that is a common problem:
it is a cycleway and foot is not explicitely allowed
there. So strictly speaking this is correct according to
the mapping.<br>
<br>
I understand the problem and I also found places where
this was ugly for myself. At the same time there are
places where it is important to keep walking people off
this road. What we could do is allow access but make it
AVOID_AT_ALL_COSTS.<br>
<br>
Peter.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 11.11.2014 23:51, D KING wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1415746303.87149.YahooMailNeo@web87904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>We have many shared use paths in our local area,
but these are only available within the current
Graphhopper Maps implementation within the cycling
mode. They are usually useful walking routes, often
the only available footpath links across rivers.<br>
<br>
We have a Sustrans cycle route on the alignment of the
old railway from Bath>Bristol, and also the
riverside towpath, both of which are unavailable for
walking routes within Graphhopper.<br>
<br>
(Correct alignment in cycling) <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=51.430789%2C-2.475915&point=51.412966%2C-2.455616&point=51.390744%2C-2.422142&point=51.381853%2C-2.390213&point=51.384022%2C-2.381823&point=51.379656%2C-2.367382&point=51.378585%2C-2.363906&point=51.377647%2C-2.35086&point=51.388361%2C-2.347877&point=51.392351%2C-2.339101&point=51.396742%2C-2.316699&point=51.394011%2C-2.313566&vehicle=bike&elevation=true&layer=TF%20Outdoors">https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=51.430789%2C-2.475915&point=51.412966%2C-2.455616&point=51.390744%2C-2.422142&point=51.381853%2C-2.390213&point=51.384022%2C-2.381823&point=51.379656%2C-2.367382&point=51.378585%2C-2.363906&point=51.377647%2C-2.35086&point=51.388361%2C-2.347877&point=51.392351%2C-2.339101&point=51.396742%2C-2.316699&point=51.394011%2C-2.313566&vehicle=bike&elevation=true&layer=TF%20Outdoors</a><br>
<br>
(Incorrectly missing the walking possibilities)<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=51.430789%2C-2.475915&point=51.412966%2C-2.455616&point=51.390744%2C-2.422142&point=51.381853%2C-2.390213&point=51.384022%2C-2.381823&point=51.379656%2C-2.367382&point=51.378585%2C-2.363906&point=51.377647%2C-2.35086&point=51.388361%2C-2.347877&point=51.392351%2C-2.339101&point=51.396742%2C-2.316699&point=51.394011%2C-2.313566&vehicle=foot&elevation=true&layer=TF%20Outdoors">https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=51.430789%2C-2.475915&point=51.412966%2C-2.455616&point=51.390744%2C-2.422142&point=51.381853%2C-2.390213&point=51.384022%2C-2.381823&point=51.379656%2C-2.367382&point=51.378585%2C-2.363906&point=51.377647%2C-2.35086&point=51.388361%2C-2.347877&point=51.392351%2C-2.339101&point=51.396742%2C-2.316699&point=51.394011%2C-2.313566&vehicle=foot&elevation=true&layer=TF%20Outdoors</a><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>