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

[Peter]

Hi Bram,

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:

https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=52.004038%2C5.854254&point=51.982713%2C5.908327&vehicle=foot&elevation=true&layer=Lyrk

and your older example:

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

Even normal streets are taken before the cycleway:
https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=51.99045%2C5.888382&point=51.98566%2C5.900216&vehicle=foot&elevation=true&layer=Lyrk

vs.

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

That is not good. We need to solve this better (somehow), maybe we
discuss further in the issue?
https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/257

Regards,
Peter

On 27.01.2015 21:02, Bram Duvigneau wrote:
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/graphhopper/attachments/20150131/27f4d026/attachment.html>