Hi Stuart, thanks for the follow up! When I introduced the pillar node / tower node difference I got ~7 times faster code which makes your high numbers of ~30secs explainable.
> This is an easy fix however does seem to break some of ITN's turning restrictions How do you mean that? Is that just hard to implement or do you see a GraphHopper limitation? Regards, Peter On 28.11.2014 11:19, Stuart Adam wrote: > As I suspected part of the issue with our speed when not using > contraction hierarchies is that currently our code is introducing all > nodes as towers rather than a mix of towers and pillars. This is an > easy fix however does seem to break some of ITN's turning restrictions > so I won't be commiting that yet. Obviously correct and legal is > better than fast :-)
_______________________________________________ GraphHopper mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/graphhopper
