Skip to content
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

Use new CycleStreets batch API successThreshold parameter #326

Closed
mvl22 opened this issue Nov 12, 2023 · 2 comments
Closed

Use new CycleStreets batch API successThreshold parameter #326

mvl22 opened this issue Nov 12, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@mvl22
Copy link

mvl22 commented Nov 12, 2023

See: cyclestreets/cyclestreets-r#86 for a new batch routing API parameter, successThreshold, which sets a success threshold for the percentage of routes successfully planned. This is part of work to move away from jobs getting stuck in finalising state.

When implemented in the package, I recommend you set it to lower than 99% for this project. You are sometimes dropping below that because of trying to plan routes too far from known cycle network, e.g. job 6801, so a level of 95% might be better.

@Robinlovelace
Copy link
Contributor

Partial duplicate of cyclestreets/cyclestreets-r#86 which sets the default to 90.

@mvl22
Copy link
Author

mvl22 commented Nov 13, 2023

Great work. It would be worth documenting though in the code that this is not the same as the published API default. People could assume that 99% will be set without realising it.

You're getting a lower level about 95-98% because I think in this project you are planning an unusually high number of routes in areas with very sparse road networks, such that nearest point resolution is not finding a relevant start/finish point because there is none. Most other clients using it almost always get 100% with only very tiny numbers of failures when OSM has some dodgy data like dead-end one-way streets.

It may be better to set that at a per-project basis here at 90% but have the package use the API default of 99%. I think my suggestion above was rather unclear!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants