[GraphHopper] Incomplete routeing (@ Gates?)

[Peter]

We want to make sure the routes are really possible and so we avoid
routes with certain barriers.

But indeed there seems to be some inconsistencies for bike and foot.
E.g. for bike we disallow: kissing_gate, stile, turnstile
and for foot we are more restrictive (gate and swing_gate) which we
should rethink. Maybe you create an issue for this?

Regards,
Peter.


> Using the GraphHopper.com/maps example implementation or an existing
> Routeing application that uses the GraphHopper API I frequently come
> across broken routes.
>
> This appears to (almost certainly, almost always), occur at gates ~
> whether the routeing is walking, cycling or driving.
> This should be a usable example of walking routeing, where there is a
> valid path between start and end, but because of the gate it goes a
> different route to the 'nearest point' on the far side of an
> impassible barrier.
> http://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=51.39383%2C-2.342652&point=51.393288%2C-2.343902&vehicle=foot&elevation=true
>
> While I can continue working with the RwGPS application with this
> fault, as gates are fairly infrequent for cycle planning, and not
> *very* common on footpaths, it does require some fiddle to make it
> work (identify a failed routeing, switch map styles to show gates,
> follow route to immediately before the gate, 'draw line' to connect
> across the barrier, follow route from immediately after the gate... ok
> for one or two, or if you are familiar enough to know where the
> routeing will fail... not so much "fun" for longer routes on FP, in
> novel terrain.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GraphHopper mailing list
> GraphHopper at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/graphhopper

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/graphhopper/attachments/20140701/d9a99b30/attachment.html>