-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Improve cycle route trip planning #34
Comments
Turned out not too hard to at least get an MVP...
For example, here's a route from DoES Liverpool up to South Park in Bootle, using both bike and rail: It can only use trains at the moment, because I don't have GTFS feeds for the buses (see #29 for more on that). There is support for bike hire schemes too, and accessibility options (which presumably requires good accessibility data in OpenStreetMap) I've left the instance running at trips.mcqn.com (try http://209.97.132.40 if the DNS hasn't propagated yet), but don't make any guarantees about its uptime 😁 |
The default time travel isochrone view is interesting too. |
Now there's an instance of OpenTripPlanner up and running we could spin up a Liverpool instance of Trufi, which is basically an open-source/open-data version of CityMapper |
May be worth comparing to Openrouteservice, a service of Heidelberg University’s GIScience Research Group, also running on OpenStreetMap. |
Inspired by this rant about route-planning software and its link to this article about OpenTripPlanner, I wonder if it'd be useful to spin up a Liverpool instance of that trip planner?
I like the idea of multi-modal planning, which would let me plan a trip where I cycle some of the way and get the train some of the way - I do that quite a bit already, and it'd be nice to have an easier way to work out useful nearby stations for such trips.
Having tried the route planning in Osmand (Android OpenStreetMap app) recently to get to Southport, it seems to do a worse job than Google for finding things like the canal towpath and the Cheshire Lines path, so maybe that would give a simple test of how it's better (or /one/ test, at least)...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: