Hi Bram, there was indeed a deployment problem which is now fixed. But the cycleway are forcefully avoided and still not taken as you can see in the examples:
https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=52.004038%2C5.854254&point=51.982713%2C5.908327&vehicle=foot&elevation=true&layer=Lyrk and your older example: 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 Even normal streets are taken before the cycleway: https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=51.99045%2C5.888382&point=51.98566%2C5.900216&vehicle=foot&elevation=true&layer=Lyrk vs. https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=51.99045%2C5.888382&point=51.988488%2C5.893779&point=51.98566%2C5.900216&vehicle=foot&elevation=true&layer=Lyrk That is not good. We need to solve this better (somehow), maybe we discuss further in the issue? https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/257 Regards, Peter On 27.01.2015 21:02, Bram Duvigneau wrote: > Hi, > > Also took me a while to get back to this. > Assuming the new code is live by now, I don't see much improvements. > Take for example this route: > > https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=Amsterdamseweg%2C%206816%2C%20Arnhem%2C%20The%20Netherlands&point=Ruiterstraat%2C%206811CP%2C%20Arnhem%2C%20The%20Netherlands&vehicle=foot&elevation=true&layer=Lyrk > > The cycling route is 2 KM shorter and is a fine pedestrian route as > well. I guess we need a kind of delta to determine when to consider > the cycling route over the route that prevents cycleways. I see that > this might add complexity to the route generation and as far as I know > is a feature that has not been implemented. > > It could be that my example is not representative due to mapping > errors. Since I'm totally blind it is not easy to survey the map and > check if everything is mapped correctly. If so, I would be glad to try > some other examples. > > Bram > On 16-1-2015 23:41, Peter wrote: >> 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
