Op vr 27 mrt. 2020 om 19:30 schreef Episteme PROMENEUR <
[email protected]>:

>
> Osmand advises cutting in several routes of 250 km our itinerary, Right ?
>
> Then I asked for Osmand to include their advice in their algorithm.
>
>
I might be wrong, but I guess this will never work.

You look at a map and see departure and destination and know where to
approximately place a waypoint.

The program does not have this graphical view. It does not know wgere to
go. I had a coordinate and another coordinate and is looking at a database
with all kind of line segments linked/coupled via nodes. That is why you
have this "shortest path" algorithms that simply combine every line segment
possible between departure and destination and see what is the fastest
(heuristic coefficient = 1.0).
And you have those programs that checks several line segments and when it
sees that the toal time is inceasing it will abandon this alternative. With
higer heuristic coefficient, this alternatives are earlier abandoned than
with a lower heuristic coefficient.

But again: the program does not have a visual "view" of the map.

Also: when the route is 400 km, should it somewhere after 200 km plot a
waypoint on a motorway? Because a motorway *must* be the fastest? Or can it
just as well plot a waypoint on "any" road after 200 km.

And when using all paths (hc=1.0): If you go from north to south
(Netherlands to Spain 1400 km), with an hc=1.0 it could just as well plot
that waypoint on a road leading to the east
(Netherlands->Germany->Switzeland->France->Spain), because  also that is
possible wih all interlinked roads in Europe, instead of Netherlands ->
Belgium -> France -> Spain) which would obviously be the fastest route as
we simply see that on the map.
And in the end it would of course see that the Eastern route is much
longer, in which case it had to calculate again.

-- 
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/CAGARPpvRxLVwb4VrzWFoFNvWVs_9C71pnKSLLsUdq5cfVRkHSw%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to