[GraphHopper] Bike way type conversion

[ratrun]

Hello Stuart,

I believe that the slight difference eventually comes from regional 
habits. I'm from Austria where usally every smaller way is closed for 
bicycles. In case that bicycles are allowed, cylists are using the 
German term "Radweg" (=cycleway) for such kind of ways, even if it is 
not a cycleway in the legal sense. Very often such ways also belong to 
regional cycle route relations and are marked. In this case also none 
cyclists usually call such a way "cycleway".

ratrun

Am 02.06.2015 um 17:29 schrieb Stuart Adam:
> Hello ratrun
>
> I can understand the usage of a small amount of flags however I would 
> have thought logic more akin to the following.  This would only 
> highlight something as a cycleway if it is intentionally marked as 
> such rather than merely having a right of way.
>
> Edited in the email so apologies for any formatting issues.
>
> if (way.hasTag("bicycle", intendedValues))
> {
> if(isPushingSection)
> wayType = WayType.OTHER_SMALL_WAY
> else if (“cycleway”.equals(highway))
> wayType = WayType.CYCLEWAY;
> else if (way.hasTag(“bicycle”,”designated)
> wayType = WayType.CYCLEWAY;
> else if (roadValues.contains(highway))
> wayType = WayType.ROAD;
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Sincerely
> Stuart Adam
>
>
> On 2 Jun 2015, at 16:10, ratrun <ratrun at gmx.at <mailto:ratrun at gmx.at>> 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Stuart,
>>
>> the waytype information is just used for the routing instructions 
>> such that a cycle rider gets a better idea what kind of way to look 
>> at. As the bits are limited and a more exact infomration is 
>> superflous for that purpose, I intentionally mangled all kind of ways 
>> somehow marked for bicycle usage together into "CYCLEWAY".
>>
>> I also had some code which produced a statistic of the tour. It 
>> calcualted the distances per each paved and unpaved waytype. This 
>> code didn't make it into the master, although I think that it is an 
>> important feature for bicycle routing. The problem was that the code 
>> was too bicycle specific and required changes in all other flag 
>> encoders as well - see issue #209.
>>
>> ratrun
>>
>> Am 02.06.2015 um 16:17 schrieb Stuart Adam:
>>> Hello all
>>>
>>> I am starting to look at bike routing and I note in the 
>>> handleBikeRelated method in BikeCommonFlagEncoder the following 
>>> logic applies.
>>>
>>>  if (way.hasTag("bicycle", intendedValues))
>>> {
>>> if (isPusingSection && !way.hasTag("bicycle", "designated"))
>>> wayType = WayType.OTHER_SMALL_WAY;
>>> else
>>> wayType = WayType.CYCLEWAY;
>>> } else if ("cycleway".equals(highway))
>>> wayType = WayType.CYCLEWAY;
>>> else if (roadValues.contains(highway))
>>> wayType = WayType.ROAD;
>>>
>>>
>>> This does not seem correct to me as from my understanding this is 
>>> taking the fact that a way has been marked as having a right of way 
>>> for bicycles (but not a pushing section) then it is a full blown 
>>> cyclepath.  In my mind at least cycleway implies dedicated and 
>>> marked (normally with differently coloured tarmac) sections which is 
>>> a much stronger indication for cycle use than just a bicycle right 
>>> of way.
>>>
>>>
>>> Am I correct and if so should this be changed or was there a reason 
>>> for this decision in Graphhopper.
>>>
>>> Sincerely
>>> Stuart Adam
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GraphHopper mailing list
>>> GraphHopper at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/graphhopper
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GraphHopper mailing list
>> GraphHopper at openstreetmap.org <mailto: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/20150602/61144501/attachment.html>