Hi,
I've been playing around with the new OSRM routing software lately and as a result have set up an experimental routing website for Switzerland:
http://osm.lonvia.de/swissroute/
It is pretty much a clone of the original map.project-osrm.org with the difference that it offers three different routing profiles: car, bike, foot.
The data is updated daily (normally finished around noon) and restricted to Switzerland only.
The idea of this site is to play around with these profiles to get a more useful router for non-motorized travel. It already takes into account some extra tags like tracktype, sac_scale and surface to find you a more pleasant route tha the usual 'walk along the big, noisy motorway' but I'm sure there are others I've forgotten. The tags currently in use are summerized here: https://github.com/lonvia/cbf-routing-profiles/wiki/Profiles
Try it out and let me know if you have suggestions to improve the profiles.
A final word of warning: the times given are very, very approximate due to the way the software works, especially for the foot and bike profiles. Please don't rely on them if you have to catch a train or get to an important meeting (or any meeting at all, for that matter).
Sarah (who apologizes for the English-only mail this time)
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Sarah Hoffmann lonvia@denofr.de wrote:
Hi,
I've been playing around with the new OSRM routing software lately and as a result have set up an experimental routing website for Switzerland:
That's really a wonderful idea, thanks for your efforts!
I played a bit with the site, and for short trips it seems to work pretty well and has suggested some nice alternatives to the routes I use often, I'm looking forward to trying them and see what they're worth.
The site seems to have performance problems with long trips in "bike" and "foot" modes, though. For example, trying to find a route from Neuchâtel to Bern in these modes results in a "Timed Out" error message. I don't know whether this is easy to fix or not, but even as it is, the site is really helpful.
Thanks for making OSM more useful for car-free people, Michel.
Hi Michel,
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:35:02AM +0200, Michel Schinz wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Sarah Hoffmann lonvia@denofr.de wrote:
I've been playing around with the new OSRM routing software lately and as a result have set up an experimental routing website for Switzerland:
That's really a wonderful idea, thanks for your efforts!
I played a bit with the site, and for short trips it seems to work pretty well and has suggested some nice alternatives to the routes I use often, I'm looking forward to trying them and see what they're worth.
The site seems to have performance problems with long trips in "bike" and "foot" modes, though. For example, trying to find a route from Neuchâtel to Bern in these modes results in a "Timed Out" error message. I don't know whether this is easy to fix or not, but even as it is, the site is really helpful.
Normally long routes should work fine. It just seems that your requests have triggered a bug that more or less killed the routing server. I've restarted it now and will have a closer look at it later.
Sarah
Le 25. 10. 12 00:32, Sarah Hoffmann a écrit :
Hi,
I've been playing around with the new OSRM routing software lately and as a result have set up an experimental routing website for Switzerland:
Hello Sarah,
Comme randonneur, je trouve ce site intéressant et utile.
Toutefois, les temps de route à pied sont calculés un peu juste, selon mon expérience.
Avec mes amicales salutations.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:13:29PM +0200, Marc Jeannerat wrote:
Le 25. 10. 12 00:32, Sarah Hoffmann a écrit :
Hi,
I've been playing around with the new OSRM routing software lately and as a result have set up an experimental routing website for Switzerland:
Hello Sarah,
Comme randonneur, je trouve ce site intéressant et utile.
Toutefois, les temps de route à pied sont calculés un peu juste, selon mon expérience.
J'ai reduit un peu la vitesse, mais ce qui manque vraiment encore, ce sont des informations sur l'altitude. Sans eux, les temps seront pas trop utile.
Sarah
2012/10/26 Sarah Hoffmann lonvia@denofr.de: [...]
J'ai reduit un peu la vitesse, mais ce qui manque vraiment encore, ce sont des informations sur l'altitude. Sans eux, les temps seront pas trop utile.
Indeed, and routing for bikes would also benefit greatly from information about the terrain. I tried today to bike one of the route suggested by your site, and while it was (a bit) shorter than the route I usually take, it was slower because it was a lot more hilly. (I must say that the roads were quieter than the ones I usually take, which was great).
As far as I know, the router software itself doesn't take terrain into account, and supporting it would probably be a major undertaking (but I read somewhere that it was one of the planned features). In the meantime, would it be possible for you to add the hill-shading layer, as you did on waymarkedtrails.org? It could be useful in judging how hilly a proposed route is.
Michel.
Le 26. 10. 12 22:39, Sarah Hoffmann a écrit :
J'ai reduit un peu la vitesse, mais ce qui manque vraiment encore, ce sont des informations sur l'altitude. Sans eux, les temps seront pas trop utile. Sarah
Tu as raison, Sarah, les informations sur l'altitude seraient importantes. Comme vieux randonneur, connaître le relief me permet de mesurer et doser mon effort.
Par ailleurs, si tu peux introduire des altitudes, il faudrait aussi en tenir compte dans la vitesse. Il y a une certaine différence de temps de parcours entre une journée de marche à la montée et la même à la descente.
Amicalement !
I have a cgi on www.pistes-nordiques.org where you can POST a wkt and returns an image with the elevation profile of the linestring or multi- provided. Could also returns a list of elevations along points, let me know if you want to test it, Sarah. Yves
Cool web app.!
Did you already see a possibility to integrate a Permalink?
Stefan
2012/10/25 Sarah Hoffmann lonvia@denofr.de:
Hi,
I've been playing around with the new OSRM routing software lately and as a result have set up an experimental routing website for Switzerland:
http://osm.lonvia.de/swissroute/
It is pretty much a clone of the original map.project-osrm.org with the difference that it offers three different routing profiles: car, bike, foot.
The data is updated daily (normally finished around noon) and restricted to Switzerland only.
The idea of this site is to play around with these profiles to get a more useful router for non-motorized travel. It already takes into account some extra tags like tracktype, sac_scale and surface to find you a more pleasant route tha the usual 'walk along the big, noisy motorway' but I'm sure there are others I've forgotten. The tags currently in use are summerized here: https://github.com/lonvia/cbf-routing-profiles/wiki/Profiles
Try it out and let me know if you have suggestions to improve the profiles.
A final word of warning: the times given are very, very approximate due to the way the software works, especially for the foot and bike profiles. Please don't rely on them if you have to catch a train or get to an important meeting (or any meeting at all, for that matter).
Sarah (who apologizes for the English-only mail this time) _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Stefan Keller sfkeller@gmail.com wrote:
Cool web app.!
Did you already see a possibility to integrate a Permalink?
There is one, actually, just click on "generate link" at the top of the route description.
Michel.
Argh, did'nt see that and thought it's "Generate XML". I expected to find it somewhere bottom right where Permalinks usually are...
Other hint and question: Since I am using OSRM in my web app www.tourpl.ch too, I'm interested if there is a documentation somewhere (in the Wiki?) which explains for each profile (bicycle, car, foot) which tags and relations are processed when generating the route graphs?
The only documentation I found so far is the code :-> https://github.com/DennisOSRM/Project-OSRM/tree/master/profiles
Stefan
2012/10/27 Michel Schinz michel.schinz@gmail.com:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Stefan Keller sfkeller@gmail.com wrote:
Cool web app.!
Did you already see a possibility to integrate a Permalink?
There is one, actually, just click on "generate link" at the top of the route description.
Michel. _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 02:07:15PM +0200, Stefan Keller wrote:
Argh, did'nt see that and thought it's "Generate XML". I expected to find it somewhere bottom right where Permalinks usually are...
Other hint and question: Since I am using OSRM in my web app www.tourpl.ch too, I'm interested if there is a documentation somewhere (in the Wiki?) which explains for each profile (bicycle, car, foot) which tags and relations are processed when generating the route graphs?
The only documentation I found so far is the code :-> https://github.com/DennisOSRM/Project-OSRM/tree/master/profiles
There is no documentation for the original profiles apart from the code.
The Swiss version uses its own set of profiles that has very little in common with the original. Source code and docu (see wiki link) can be found on github: https://github.com/lonvia/cbf-routing-profiles
Sarah
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Sarah Hoffmann lonvia@denofr.de wrote: [...]
Try it out and let me know if you have suggestions to improve the profiles.
So, I played a bit more with your router, and have two remarks:
1. In "bike" mode, one-way restrictions are ignored, and while this may correspond to the riding style of some people, it can produce some quite dangerous routes... One example is the following one: http://osrm.at/1Br If you switch the profile to "car", you'll see that the route changes to avoid going against the trafic in the "Rue des Parcs" (a very dangerous thing to do given how busy the area is).
2. In "bike" mode, it seems that the router considers everything tagged with "highway=path" as a potential route, and this can lead it to suggest some really tricky routes. One example is the following one: http://osrm.at/1Bs The path that starts at the information sign ("i" on the map) and then goes through the forest is not suitable at all for biking. While doable on a mountain bike, this path is completely unsuitable for normal biking: it's a steep single track with a few parts that are tricky to negotiate.
I don't really have a good suggestion for this second problem, but maybe having separate profiles for road and mountain bikes would be a good idea. The profile for road bikes would take only paved roads, while the one for mountain bikes would consider unpaved roads/paths too. There could also be a third profile (for city bikes, or what we call "vélos tous chemins" in French) that would consider unpaved but easy paths as valid, but I fear that this is very hard to do without an improvement in the tagging of the paths and/or information about the terrain.
HTH, Michel.
On 27.10.2012 13:45, Michel Schinz wrote:
- In "bike" mode, it seems that the router considers everything
tagged with "highway=path" as a potential route, and this can lead it to suggest some really tricky routes. One example is the following one: http://osrm.at/1Bs The path that starts at the information sign ("i" on the map) and then goes through the forest is not suitable at all for biking. While doable on a mountain bike, this path is completely unsuitable for normal biking: it's a steep single track with a few parts that are tricky to negotiate.
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.
Datendelphin
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.
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
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
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
Hi Petr,
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 08:54:05PM +0100, Petr wrote:
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".
Yes, that certainly would be a nice thing to have, for walking as well.
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.
Wow, awesome. If you find settings in the profile that work better for you, I'm certainly interested to hear about that. I'm not a very frequent biker so all the weights you find in the profile are just an uneducated guess.
Did you think about this Relation topic? Do you know if it somehow would be possible?
It is possible but a bit more difficult. The main problem is that osrm itself does not know about route relations. So I was thinking to add a preprocessing step that adds artifical tags to all member ways of hiking/ biking routes. These tags can then be used in the profile to give a preference to marked routes.
I have not yet thought about how exactly to do the preprocessing. It most likely involves some programming with osmium or osmosis. If you want to look into it, I'd be happy to help.
Gruss
Sarah
On 27.10.2012 17:13, Michel Schinz wrote:
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...
Personally, I am of the opinion that highway=path should be bike-routable by default unless something like sac_scale or trackgrade makes it unsuitable for bikes. After all, otherwise you could simply have used highway=footway if you want a pedestrian only way...
Sebastian
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 01:45:42PM +0200, Michel Schinz wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Sarah Hoffmann lonvia@denofr.de wrote: [...]
Try it out and let me know if you have suggestions to improve the profiles.
So, I played a bit more with your router, and have two remarks:
- In "bike" mode, one-way restrictions are ignored, and while this
may correspond to the riding style of some people, it can produce some quite dangerous routes... One example is the following one: http://osrm.at/1Br If you switch the profile to "car", you'll see that the route changes to avoid going against the trafic in the "Rue des Parcs" (a very dangerous thing to do given how busy the area is).
Good catch. Fixed.
- In "bike" mode, it seems that the router considers everything
tagged with "highway=path" as a potential route, and this can lead it to suggest some really tricky routes. One example is the following one: http://osrm.at/1Bs The path that starts at the information sign ("i" on the map) and then goes through the forest is not suitable at all for biking. While doable on a mountain bike, this path is completely unsuitable for normal biking: it's a steep single track with a few parts that are tricky to negotiate.
highway=path is a nasty tag because it can be anything from a dedicated cycleway down to a path only suitable for climbers with gear. Completely excluding them would be too strong, so some heuristic is needed which ones to include. Using sac_scale seemed a good idea to exclude at least the worst paths but I'm open for other suggestions. Are any other tags in frequent use that mark paths as unsuitable for bikes? Should we invent one, bicycle=mtb for example?
Another possibility would be to come from the other side and only include paths tagged with bicycle=yes or bicycle=designated. That would be also a rather strong assumption and currently exclude a lot of good paths as well but it would put routing on the safe side and with time people would get the habit of marking the ways correctly.
I don't really have a good suggestion for this second problem, but maybe having separate profiles for road and mountain bikes would be a good idea. The profile for road bikes would take only paved roads, while the one for mountain bikes would consider unpaved roads/paths too. There could also be a third profile (for city bikes, or what we call "vélos tous chemins" in French) that would consider unpaved but easy paths as valid, but I fear that this is very hard to do without an improvement in the tagging of the paths and/or information about the terrain.
Yes, I've considered offering two profiles already. I wouldn't go as far as having a profile for mountain bikers but at least paved vs. unpaved seems a good idea. For the foot profile as well btw.
I'll look into it next week.
Sarah
-
datendelphin -
Marc Jeannerat -
Michel Schinz -
Petr -
Philipp Schultz -
Sarah Hoffmann -
Sebastian Spaeth -
Stefan Keller -
Yves