Add new fastbike profile for very low traffic #182
Comments
|
Hi Ess Bee, sorry missed your email but found it now. we don't have any defined process for the evolution of the "official" profile list, but as far as I understand your problem is not about getting some sort of "approval", but just the technical means for sharing with others. I remember that we (=Norbert+me) agreed on establishing "shared" profiles that behave like custom-profiles (=can be changed via brouter-web) but are not deleted by the cleaning job and can be permalinked. I will habe a fresh thought the next days and com back here regards, Arndts PS: did some tests with your profile. Elevation penalty switched off by intention? That's really a way to avoid traffic, because traffic is in the valleys.. Found some artefacts that that originate from prefering "service" over "residential" together with the low turncost. Such "service loops" will not really make your trip faster. |
|
Hello Abrensch, |
|
see also nrenner/brouter-web#232 @abrensch I plan to implement profile sharing as my next main task. We already added b154851 to configure and read from a shared folder. What is still missing is uploading/moving a profile to the shared folder and client-side handling, probably using a "share" button. |
|
Hello Abrensch,
I am currently in the french Alpes with my fastbike underway...and
discovered in the last days a serious problem using brouter and "elevation":
I send you the calculated gpx and the recorded gpx (made with Osmand) of
our tour today.
As you can see, the calculated elevation is wrong, and I do not know where
the problem is (by me, the OSM map, or brouter)
I am back home in Germany next week, if I find anything, I will inform you.
Regards
Ess Bee / Serge
abrensch <notifications@github.com> schrieb am Di., 20. Aug. 2019, 23:53:
… Hi Ess Bee,
sorry missed your email but found it now.
we don't have any defined process for the evolution of the "official"
profile list, but as far as I understand your problem is not about getting
some sort of "approval", but just the technical means for sharing with
others.
I remember that we (=Norbert+me) agreed on establishing "shared" profiles
that behave like custom-profiles (=can be changed via brouter-web) but are
not deleted by the cleaning job and can be permalinked.
I will habe a fresh thought the next days and com back here
regards, Arndts
PS: did some tests with your profile. Elevation penalty switched off by
intention? That's really a way to avoid traffic, because traffic is in the
valleys.. Found some artefacts that that originate from prefering "service"
over "residential" together with the low turncost. Such "service loops"
will not really make your trip faster.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#182?email_source=notifications&email_token=AL75PSB3FNRZ77RKJCITXHLQFRRWFA5CNFSM4IN2PBQ2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD4XY2PA#issuecomment-523210044>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AL75PSBZ3JEUSIJM5ECA3FDQFRRWFANCNFSM4IN2PBQQ>
.
|
|
@EssBee59 I think your comment on Github is missing some data (probably attached to your email but not taken into account by Github?) |
|
Hello, |
|
We got a request to Add "fastbike-verylowtraffic.brf" to profile selection · #293 · nrenner/brouter-web:
I didn't notice this profile is already in the repo: fastbike-verylowtraffic.brf. Looks like it got added in PR #189 (comment) along with lots of other stuff for some reason. Although there wasn't an intention here to add more profiles and some remarks from above were not addressed?
|
|
Hi nrenner, I have direct contacts with abrench, but not in the last pandemie weeks... |
|
Ah, this explains, why I was able to load If the usage of loading the profile from the URL ( Anyway, it would be great if @EssBee59 could open a repository for the |
|
Hello Hutec, Repository: I have no experience with, this, could you help me or send documentation "hwo to"... Regards |
|
Tested your profile fastbike-verylowtraffic.brf. Thanks a lot! I did the routing from Pieterlen (Kanton Bern) to Wynigen (Kanton Bern). The original Profile shows a routing, which really avoids traffic, however the 1st alternative produces a routing, which involves heavy traffic (the Kanton-street from Grenchen to Solothurn e.g.) allthough there are small ways just beside without heavy traffic. 2nd and 3rd alternative is quite ok But even with "Original", there are unnecessary heavy traffic roads involved (from Lengnau to Arch), there are small paved streets just beside. |
|
Hello Schdrag, Thank for your message! About 1st alternative (that I never tested or used):
I agree, biking on lanes or tracks parallel to a high traffic road is not my dream, but the danger for bikers is minimized, compared to a road without special ways for bikers ... |
|
Thanks a lot for explaining the details! 1st alternative fast bike very low traffic (vbvlt)
Original fbvlt:
Locus map pro produces an error message using fbvlt (fast bike very low traffic): ... profiles2/fastbike-verylowtraffic.brf does not contain expressions for context way (old version?). I'm using brouter 1.6.1 (zip from the brouter web page) and locus map pro (most recent version 3.37.2) Edit: I use https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/blob/master/misc/profiles2/fastbike-verylowtraffic.brf |
|
Helo schdrag, I understand every point, every biker have own preferences... BUT the flexibility of the brouter is the best answer to that! I will further check these points, but remember, highways with associated cycleways offer possibly more security to bikers as highways with lower traffic but without cycleways.... Anyway, you can change easilly the profile: (see section in profile and add the 2 NEW lines as below) The error with "locusmaps": did you installed the last "lookup.dat" ? |
|
"highways with associated cycleways offer possibly more security to bikers as highways with lower traffic but without cycleways...." Grenchen - Solothurn: I will change the profile and come back to you. Highway with/without cycleway: I would like to avoid streets with a lot of traffic (usually highways), compared to (narrow) streets nearly without traffic). So I would like to give a severe penalty for traffic but I would like to avoid unnecessary elevations all in all. " the error with locusmap: I installed lookup.dat again (from 1.6.1 zip) and I downloaded your profile from Github now displaying it first as "raw" and then I saved it. It works now (hint from zossebart here https://forum.locusmap.eu/index.php?topic=6723.0 |
|
As explained, on the "highway=primary" Grenchen - Solothurn a cycleway=lane or cycleway=track is defined in the OSM map. If you do not like to use such lanes/track, you have to enhance the corresponding cost.... Changing the default value (0) to 0.3 or higher will change the routing and avoid the primary with lanes/tracks. The current name of the option (cycleway_lane_penalty) could better explain the change: can you propose an other name? |
|
Hi Serge Best regards Herbert |
|
Hi there Edit: just seen, that you have added the switch to http://brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=11/49.9579/8.5745/OpenStreetMap&profile=fastbike-verylowtraffic. Thanks a lot! The file on the abrensch page is still the old one. just tested with penalty 0.5: works fine! How can I allow gravel distances? There is a 300m gravel route between (Selzach-Bellach), which is accepted along with trekking-ignore-cr, but your profile avoids it. And your profile does not guide on the paved path just on the righthand side of the railway line from Grenchen to Selzach (no traffic, but fast). Or is it caused by the OSM raw data? |
|
Hello Schdrad, Your comment "The file on the abrensch page is still the old one": what do you mean here, only know a file position? kindly |
|
With "abrensch" page you means probably Note: But till now a minor issue exists: after loading the "brouter-web" page with "&profile=fastbike-verylowtraffic" as Parameter in the URL, you have to "upload" the profile before the first routing.. |
|
Ok, then I wait for the 0.12.0 page. Thanks a lot for the cache hint. I have deleted the code via "delete" in the section personlized profile (after the mark-up), then I select another profile and then I press apply. "Highway Residential.have generally a good surface" Instead of
"Your comment "The file on the abrensch page is still the old one": what do you mean here, only know a file position?" |
|
Hi EssBee59 I tested on a few routes but ran into a snag on the route How can I change your profile to prevent this? PS: I have tried setting avoid_path to 1 but it just routes to a different footpath within Botanical Gardens (so still forbidden) |
Hello wizit38, regards |
|
.....as it is generally bad idea to tweak routing algorithms to fix incorrect or incomplete mapping, instead of fixing the mapping itself. |
Ok. I will do that |
|
Hi Ess Bee when "cycleway" only on 1 side of the road, use it only if it is on the right side in the direction of travel!assign cycleway_right if reversedirection=yes Any idea why the route crosses to the other side of the road to take the PCN? PS: Sorry about the text in bold. Seems it considers the comment designator as bold |
|
Hello, |
|
Hi Ang Mo Kio Avenue 6 is defined by OSM as highway:primary |
|
highway=cycleway is the formally independent way with cycleway status. highway=* + cycleway[:left|: right]=yes|lane|track|* is formally the feature of the main OSM highway. The former mapping is typically used for physically independent cycleways that may join other highways, going along. The latter mapping is typically used for cycleways more or less integrated with main highways, usually in urban area. |
|
If a cycle lane is shared with pedestrians (next to pavement) and runs parallel to the road, should it be defined as the former or the latter. (I'm wondering if I need to do an edit of Open Street Map |
|
The rule No 1 is: Never modify OSM mapping just to get better routing results. Do it only to better reflect the real physical, law or similar status. Some cases have several alternative mappings, both correct or acceptable, even if one may be semantically more preferred. It it feels like a major road feature, preferred is the feature,even if the other way is not wrong. If it feels like independent way, preferred is the independent cycleway, especially if it goes apart from the major road in some sections. Any way, it should keep the single way how it is mapped. Sharing with pedestrians is not relevant, there is many independent cycleways sharing access. |
|
ok. the reason i was asking is because it seemed to fit 2 better based on your description since the cycleway is in an urban area. I'm only doing the routing in Singapore for my testing since that's where I live and am familiar with it. On those that i'm not sure, I can physically check out. That's not possible when I'm touring in another country. I found the app and profile useful as it corresponds well to route I'd like to choose during a tour in another country |
|
Ess Bee So, is the route correct even though the cycleway is on the opposite side of the road? (because of how the cycleway was defined) |
|
Yes, as explained by poutnikl, the cycleway on the left of the highway (highway=primary) is defined in OSM as a separate highway (highway=cycleway), so the rule with "do not use a cycleway if it only exists on the left side of the road for your direction" do not apply. A remark: on the right of the highway at this place you have a footway, that was not considered by the brouter: turnInstructioncCatchingRange: On a bike, I prefer 2 Turn instructions when they are separated by more as 8 meters. |
|
Ess Bee i will experiment with the CatchingRange. Have a good day. Stay safe. |
Hello Abrensch,
My subject is allreay addressed with issue 232.
The response of Norbert suggested to create a new issue for you…
To share my custom profile, I have to wait on the new features planed by Norbert…. Or you agree to put my profile in the standard profiles:
Why did I create a new profile ?
I am biking (using a fastbike) in Hessen (by Francfort). But especially in the middle of the week a very high traffic of cars and trucs is a real problem and dangerous when you are alone.
(groups of bikers at weekends have less problems and can use the 2 existing fastbike profiles)
That for, I created in the last monthes a „fastbike-verylowtraffic“, of course based on the existing profiles.
More information on the profiles (goal and features) is contained in the header of the brf profile "fastbike-verylowstraffic" I sent you per mail 2 days ago.
To check my profile and compare it as exemple with „fastbike-lowtraffic », here on one of my prefered route :
http://brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=11/49.9579/8.5745/OpenStreetMap&lonlats=8.354535,49.86674|8.672104,50.020824
Of course you can change the new name of the profile or insert « beta » in it
Regards
Ess Bee
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: