Thanks for the PDF summary, very explicative. A couple of questions from my side (I apologise if those have been asked and answered somewhere else already). 1) why is hc=1 the standard parameter? in 5 of 7 cases the results (in terms of distance and travel time) is the same as hc=1.5. And in the others, the gap between the results of hc=1 and hc=1.5 is minimal (negligible). 2) out of curiosity: is there a technical reason for factor 1.4 not being tested?
thanks Il giorno sabato 28 marzo 2020 11:46:12 UTC+1, Harry van der Wolf ha scritto: > > Like I have stated before: Use a different profile with a different > heuristic coefficient(See .xmls attached). > In another mail thread "heuristic coefficient comparisons" recently, I did > comparisons also against Magic Earth. See attached pdf. I don't care about > differences in seconds. I do care about differences in minutes as this > makes it unusable. > I wrote extensively about using these profiles and how they improve OsmAnd > a lot for car navigation, next to being it the "swiis knife" for all other > navigation/tracking/hiking functionalities with overlay/underlay maps, and > you name it. > > Finally: 3D is in the make. I also posted about that in this mailing > group, referring to one of the telegram groups where this is shared. > > Just do what you want with it. > Trying to prove that OsmAnd is "bad" mail after mail, only leads to one > conclusion: Use another app and stop wasting your time on such a "bad" app. > > Harry > > -- 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osmand/a0dfee17-b1b9-4569-886a-e329f4d7e39a%40googlegroups.com.
