Hey Sarah,
Nice idea! I like the bike profiles. :-) What i missed on the touring profile is to make use of all the nice routes for bicycles. (eg. National and Regional Routes). The osrm guided me with your profiles over steep hills and on some ways with a lot of traffic, where the official bicycle route would make the way just some minutes longer but much more comfortable. So for myself, id like to have a bicycle profile: "take as many official bikeroutes as possible".
As a result of my tries on your page I also installed the osrm server and the webinterface here locally. As I'm not an IT pro, it took me quite long. :-) But it seems to work. But now while having a look on your profiles and how exactly it works I'm getting into the direction of having no clue.
Did you think about this Relation topic? Do you know if it somehow would be possible?
Cheers, Petr
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Sarah Hoffmann lonvia@denofr.de wrote:
Hoi,
I have now split the bike and pedestrian profiles into two profiles, where one preferes paved ways, the other unpaved ones. Note that apart from one or two exceptions, the different profiles do not exclude more ways, they just rank them lower to give you a better route. This should cater best to the average biker/walker. Extreme cases like MTB or racing bikes would need their own profiles but that is probably better done on dedicated sites.
Other changes:
- for bikes, mtb:scale is taken into account (excluding the path if set)
- optional hill shading layer
The whole issue with elevation profiles is a bit more complicated as this really needs support from the routing engine. There are plans to implement it but when that will happen, I do not know.
Sarah
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 08:34:21PM +0200, Philipp Schultz wrote:
Hello,
I have tried to route my usual bike trips between work@Bern and home@Biel/Bienne and I am impressed by the quality of the routing. Even as indigenous
biker
I got a few useful hints for alternative routes. I think that tool is already a very useful planning help.
To increase the comfort for bikers, the routing algorithm should take in account elevation, meaning if there is a route around a hill I would
prefer
a few km more than 100 m elevation. This may also be realised with a diferentiated speed scale like: +-3% 28 kmh +5% 20 kmh +8% 15 kmh -5% 35 kmh -8% 50 kmh
Since bikers have quite different requirements regarding pavement - I
have
a bike (Tourenrad / vélo de randonée) that fits to any pavement but
single
trails only descending - this should be a setting like road (only paved) touring (paved unpaved including tracks and easy trails) mountain bike (only trails)
Thanks Philipp
2012/10/27 Michel Schinz michel.schinz@gmail.com
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 4:45 PM, datendelphin mailinglist@osm.datendelphin.net wrote:
For paths, could the sac_scale tag maybe be used? if sac scale is mountain_hiking or more, don't use it for the bike profile.
Right, and according to the document Sarah put on the wiki (https://github.com/lonvia/cbf-routing-profiles/wiki/Profiles), this is already done: everything that has a sac_scale tag is considered unroutable. The path I mentioned in my example doesn't have that tag, and I could indeed simply add it. That would solve that particular problem, but I'm wondering whether this solution isn't a bit fragile... Anyway, I don't have something much better to suggest for now...
Thanks, Michel. _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
-- Philipp Schultz Rue Ernst-Schüler 27 CH-2502 Biel/Bienne
Tel +41 32 342 31 69 Mob +41 79 826 81 18
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch