Hello Peter I am just awaiting a corporate decision on the contributor license and then I will see what I can do.
Sincerely Stuart Adam On 3 Jun 2015, at 08:12, Peter <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Stuart, > > for me this looks also okay. So what changed is e.g. isPushingSection && > bicycle=designated => before CYCLEWAY, now OTHER_SMALL_WAY? > > Maybe just create a pull request and we'll see e.g. what the tests (and > ratrun) says ;) > > Regards, > Peter > > On 02.06.2015 17:29, Stuart Adam wrote: >> Hello ratrun >> >> I can understand the usage of a small amount of flags however I would have >> thought logic more akin to the following. This would only highlight >> something as a cycleway if it is intentionally marked as such rather than >> merely having a right of way. >> >> Edited in the email so apologies for any formatting issues. >> >> if (way.hasTag("bicycle", intendedValues)) >> { >> if(isPushingSection) >> wayType = WayType.OTHER_SMALL_WAY >> else if (“cycleway”.equals(highway)) >> wayType = WayType.CYCLEWAY; >> else if (way.hasTag(“bicycle”,”designated) >> wayType = WayType.CYCLEWAY; >> else if (roadValues.contains(highway)) >> wayType = WayType.ROAD; >> >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Sincerely >> Stuart Adam >> >> >> On 2 Jun 2015, at 16:10, ratrun <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hello Stuart, >>> >>> the waytype information is just used for the routing instructions such that >>> a cycle rider gets a better idea what kind of way to look at. As the bits >>> are limited and a more exact infomration is superflous for that purpose, I >>> intentionally mangled all kind of ways somehow marked for bicycle usage >>> together into "CYCLEWAY". >>> >>> I also had some code which produced a statistic of the tour. It calcualted >>> the distances per each paved and unpaved waytype. This code didn't make it >>> into the master, although I think that it is an important feature for >>> bicycle routing. The problem was that the code was too bicycle specific and >>> required changes in all other flag encoders as well - see issue #209. >>> >>> ratrun >>> >>> Am 02.06.2015 um 16:17 schrieb Stuart Adam: >>>> Hello all >>>> >>>> I am starting to look at bike routing and I note in the handleBikeRelated >>>> method in BikeCommonFlagEncoder the following logic applies. >>>> >>>> if (way.hasTag("bicycle", intendedValues)) >>>> { >>>> if (isPusingSection && !way.hasTag("bicycle", "designated")) >>>> wayType = WayType.OTHER_SMALL_WAY; >>>> else >>>> wayType = WayType.CYCLEWAY; >>>> } else if ("cycleway".equals(highway)) >>>> wayType = WayType.CYCLEWAY; >>>> else if (roadValues.contains(highway)) >>>> wayType = WayType.ROAD; >>>> >>>> >>>> This does not seem correct to me as from my understanding this is taking >>>> the fact that a way has been marked as having a right of way for bicycles >>>> (but not a pushing section) then it is a full blown cyclepath. In my mind >>>> at least cycleway implies dedicated and marked (normally with differently >>>> coloured tarmac) sections which is a much stronger indication for cycle >>>> use than just a bicycle right of way. >>>> >>>> >>>> Am I correct and if so should this be changed or was there a reason for >>>> this decision in Graphhopper. >>>> >>>> Sincerely >>>> Stuart Adam > > _______________________________________________ > GraphHopper mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/graphhopper
_______________________________________________ GraphHopper mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/graphhopper
