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

[Peter]

Sorry, took a bit ;). Let me know if this fixes your problem:
https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/303

should be live in 2 days.

Peter


On 13.11.2014 18:36, Bram Duvigneau wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/graphhopper/attachments/20150116/cb8d12ed/attachment.html>