[OSRM-talk] OSRM v5 Speed
hofmann at mapbox.com
Wed Apr 27 20:22:02 UTC 2016
Here's the v5 equivalent, reporting distance and duration, so it should be
exactly what you need:
See the v5 Spec and the libosrm C++ API (especially this one has some nice
For v5 clone from master, grab the v5 release from Github or use this
master branch zip:
Daniel J H
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:59 PM, James Grant <james at grantzone.net> wrote:
> Hi Daniel
> I'm running a release version of OSRM which I downloaded and compiled from
> the instructions given.
> The main thing I am after is the driving time and distance initially, not
> interested in alternate route or anything else. In OSRM v4 using the
> simpleclient.cpp as a base for my code, I used the following parameters:
> // Set up the parameters required.
> RouteParameters route_parameters;
> route_parameters.zoom_level = 18; // no
> route_parameters.print_instructions = false; // turn by
> turn instructions
> route_parameters.alternate_route = false; // get an
> alternate route, too
> route_parameters.geometry = false; // retrieve
> geometry of route
> route_parameters.compression = false; // polyline
> route_parameters.check_sum = -1; // see wiki
> route_parameters.service = "viaroute"; // that's
> route_parameters.output_format = "json";
> route_parameters.jsonp_parameter = ""; // set for jsonp
> I did try and search in the source code for the equivalent, but couldn't
> find the right source file. Found plenty of references to parseParameters
> etc but nothing that I could say for definite were the actual parameters.
> On 26-Apr-16 11:24 AM, Daniel Hofmann wrote:
> Yes we benchmarked v5 and v4 in
> found some regressions and considerably improved v5 in
> Are you running the v5 release (and not a RC)?
> What's your specific use-case?
> If you enable steps and alternatives the response is larger than in v4 and
> especially assembling all the GeoJSON objects / variants has some
> allocation issues. If that's the case, try the Polyline format.
> Daniel J H
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:43 AM, James Grant <james at grantzone.net> wrote:
>> Hi there.
>> Has anyone done any comparisons between version 4 and 5 of OSRM speed
>> wise when looking at the C++ examples (the simpleclient.cpp and
>> I've now built version 5 and the example.cpp but on first appearances, it
>> is slower than version 4. I will have to recompile the simpleclient.cpp
>> with the same parameters as I've currently got to directly compare speed.
>> OSRM-talk mailing list
>> OSRM-talk at openstreetmap.org
> OSRM-talk mailing listOSRM-talk at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk
> OSRM-talk mailing list
> OSRM-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OSRM-talk