[Routing] Introducing "noise" when routing

[Marcus Wolschon]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gerald A schrieb:
| I'm not clear if the routing is realtime or computed in advance, but
| I'm not sure
| more traffic information makes any difference whatsoever to the
| "noise" suggestion.
|
| I might be missing something, but assume that there are N drivers with
| the same satnav system. Now, they get an update on traffic and are
| diverted to an alternate route. Without some fudge/noise factor,
| wouldn't you simply be moving the congestion to another route?
| (Assuming that N is a significant number of drivers, and they are
| fairly close together on the preliminary congested route).

No.
because:
a) They do not start at the same time at the same point.
b) They get updated traffic-info and are rerouted while
~   driving.
Thus 2 things may happen:
1)
Drivers without updated traffic-info cause a traffic-jam and
you are routed around them.
2)
Traffic slows down significantly, more people are routed
around it and therenever is a traffic-jam but the shorter
route is used by as many cars as it can handle.

Thus of cause active traffic-info is the recommed solution
and noise MAY BE a fallback if you do not get such info.

If you know that there is no problem, it makes no sense to
drive a longer path. If you do know there is one, you
will drive around it anyway. Thus only in the absense of
such info a less perfect way to avoid such jams is advisable.

Marcus


|
| Thanks,
| Gerald.
|
| _______________________________________________
| Routing mailing list
| Routing at openstreetmap.org
| http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/routing

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHzW5Wf1hPnk3Z0cQRAosbAKDRbpaqXAAV97eyjRL93mD0oT+qyQCgoeSN
AhCiu4QTF5ob5F/wJEG8F34=
=T1eV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----