[GraphHopper] Routeing option: Walking on mixed cycle/footpath

[D KING]

Not always, but certainly there are mixed routes excluded for walking that are often the sole option on an alignment. I am only aware of two cycle only facilities (an off road track, and a bmx track) in the local area, but four distinct shared use foot/cycle paths, including one heavily using old railway tunnels for a level route under significant hills, and another using the old railway line to Bristol.

There are of course also many footpaths that are not accessible to cycles, plus byways and bridleways that are. 

Generally, walking gives better routes for pedestrians, but they break down far less gracefully in those odd cases where they fail... Certainly better with the improved 'gates' than the original routeing, but a lot of scope for improvements.





>________________________________
> From: Bram Duvigneau <bram at bramd.nl>
>To: GraphHopper Java routing engine <graphhopper at openstreetmap.org> 
>Sent: Thursday, 13 November 2014, 17:36
>Subject: Re: [GraphHopper] Routeing option: Walking on mixed cycle/footpath
> 
>
>
>Hello,
>
>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. 
>
>In my experience until now planning local pedestrian routes, the
      bike profile always gives a better route then the pedestrian
      profile.
>
>Bram
>On 13-11-2014 0:56, Peter wrote:
>
>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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>Peter.
>>
>>
>>On 11.11.2014 23:51, D KING wrote:
>>
>>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.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>(Correct alignment in cycling) 
>>>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
>>>
>>>(Incorrectly missing the walking possibilities)
>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
GraphHopper mailing list GraphHopper at openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/graphhopper 
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20141113/82d57347/attachment.html>