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

Seriously consider surface and smoothness data #58

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@emesik

emesik commented May 26, 2016

This code takes surface= and smoothness= information under consideration, adding penalty for surfaces unsuitable for racing bike (cobblestone, gravels, etc.) and those marked as being of low quality. It also promotes roads of asphalt/concrete surface in good and excellent condition.

I tested it on several routes in Poland. Although the map lacks a lot of information, the profile seems to work well. The default behavior on roads without any surface information is to assume they are of the same quality as if they were surface=asphalt + smoothness=intermediate,

@emesik

This comment has been minimized.

emesik commented May 16, 2017

Hi,

Any plan on merging this code? I use brouter almost everyday and find this surface data very useful for road bike trips, even though it's very rudimentary on OSM. I also contribute data gathered from my trips, like marking cobblestone to warn riders. That data, however, is useless with basic fastbike profile.

If you have any suggestions on how I could improve the profile, you're very welcome.

@poutnikl

This comment has been minimized.

poutnikl commented May 16, 2017

Until @abrench implements the offered change, you may find useful experimenting with profiles derived from my templates, like Trekking-fast, with advise to use MTB_factor -1.0 .. -2.0 and smallpaved_factorcca +0.25 .. +0.5 as typical values.
As my profiles v2.6 now consider surface and smoothness for all OSM highways, and the above parameters would push priorities toward Fastbike.
More at my GitHub Profile wiki.

@abrensch

This comment has been minimized.

Owner

abrensch commented Jun 7, 2017

sorry for not responding on this. I'm not really active in profile development, others are and they are using surface and smoothness.

I beleave that your patch is o.k,, but just merging into trekking.brf would require a lot of regression testing, and I don't have much time for the project currently.

I will have to find a way for other profile-developers to better expose their work e.g. on brouter-web or the android app, still thinking about it.

@wetneb

This comment has been minimized.

wetneb commented Aug 31, 2018

I found myself working on the exact same issue. It would be great to merge this PR.

@Phyks

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

Phyks commented Oct 18, 2018

This looks really nice to take into account the surface and smoothness like this! But what about other profiles? Shouldn't the same kind of changes be applied to trekking and other profiles as well?

Phyks added a commit to Phyks/brouter that referenced this pull request Nov 11, 2018

Phyks added a commit to Phyks/brouter that referenced this pull request Nov 23, 2018

Phyks added a commit to Phyks/brouter that referenced this pull request Nov 23, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment