Hi! > I'm as yet in progress to full understanding how CH works. Described > problem i temporarily fixed by not to call "disconnect" after > contracting node (i don't know how important it is - in 0.3 was > "removeHigher2LowerEdges" flag).
Not sure what you mean here, but this is no longer necessary in 0.4 > > Unfortunately we can't afford be yours sponsor, but idea about crowd > funding sounds good. > Anyway i continue to trying to implement this. Trust me: implementing this on your own will be a lot more expensive than sponsoring :) Regards, Peter > > 17.03.2015 13:16, Peter пишет: >> Hi, >> >>> it's not possible because both directions stop on high-level nodes on >> different edges. >> >> The search will be edge based and so the edges will be identical. >> >> There is an issue for this #270, where we list the major problems with >> turn costs and CH. This requires knowledge with CH and also some GH >> internals. I guess this will take us roughly 2-4 full time weeks. As >> this is relative unattractive long but very important (for us too) what >> do you think about a crowd funding campaign? >> Where every company in the need could sponsor us with only a fraction of >> the costs. (And we would also sponsor the majority of our time for this) >> >> Do not hesitate to contact me off-list if you or others are interested! >> >> Kind Regards, >> Peter >> >> On 16.03.2015 12:57, dos65 wrote: >>> Hi, I’m trying to implement turn costs for CH. >>> TurnCosts works only with edge-based traversal mode and the condition >>> for finding path is reaching same node and same edge for both >>> directions. But with levelGraph it's not possible because both >>> directions stop on high-level nodes on different edges. Do you have >>> any ideas about that? >> _______________________________________________ GraphHopper mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/graphhopper
