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

[Bram Duvigneau]

Hi,

Also took me a while to get back to this.
Assuming the new code is live by now, I don't see much improvements.
Take for example this route:

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

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.

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.

Bram
On 16-1-2015 23:41, Peter wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150127/16a272b1/attachment.html>