On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Greg Troxel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Paul Johnson <[email protected]> writes: > > > I'm curious what would be the ideal way to implement a way to avoid > > construction=minor unless a detour would significantly increase travel > > distance and time. Maybe if the first-picked ideal route crosses > > construction=minor, warn that there is construction and automatically > offer > > to avoid it? > > I guess the question is if you want to avoid it because it is > construction, or because the traveling speed will be lower. > Both? Construction=minor can be pretty much any long-term project where the road isn't completely closed, but does tend to be inconvenient at best, and in full-size and larger vehicles, especially dangerous as the temporary traffic controls may be reducing lane widths to something too narrow to fit down. Perhaps by vehicle type as well, when I was a truck driver I used to absolutely dread construction on Oklahoma's backroads, as this would often make for an especially tight fit (ie, rubbing tires on the edge of the road or bridge on one side, and on the other, actually pushing bollards stuck to the pavement outwards as the trailer rubbed past them) and I would gladly take a 80-100km detour to avoid 1km of construction like that and the inevitable delays resulting. > Perhaps routers should assume half speed for construction=minor, unless > there is better data. > I like this concept; seems like this would avoid construction unless it is especially burdensome, at least for for car and bicycle modes. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Osmand" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
