Hey Stuart, thanks - would be awesome and very appreciated!
Regards, Peter On 05.06.2015 12:39, Stuart Adam wrote: > 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] > <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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
