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 >>> >>
_______________________________________________ GraphHopper mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/graphhopper
