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

Point at new OSRM demo server #1637

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
9 participants
@willwhite

willwhite commented Sep 9, 2017

The OSRM Demo Server is down and we're now using the Mapbox API as the official OSRM demo. This PR switches to point at the Mapbox Directions API, which has nearly an identical API. The only thing we don't support right now is the hints parameter, so I removed that in this PR. The access token included here should give plenty of headroom to avoid interruptions in the future.

@tomhughes

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tomhughes

tomhughes Sep 9, 2017

Member

Do you intended that access token to be shared by all deployments of this code?

We normally make such tokens configurable in config/application.yml and then deploy the specific token for the main site via our chef recipes.

Member

tomhughes commented Sep 9, 2017

Do you intended that access token to be shared by all deployments of this code?

We normally make such tokens configurable in config/application.yml and then deploy the specific token for the main site via our chef recipes.

@willwhite

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@willwhite

willwhite Sep 10, 2017

Yes, sharing that access token across deployments is ok and hardcoding it make the switchover easier. If you'd rather make it a configurable I'm happy to implement that too.

willwhite commented Sep 10, 2017

Yes, sharing that access token across deployments is ok and hardcoding it make the switchover easier. If you'd rather make it a configurable I'm happy to implement that too.

@willwhite

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@willwhite

willwhite Sep 17, 2017

@tomhughes any strong opinion either way? I think this is ready to merge from my perspective if you are ok with the token being there.

willwhite commented Sep 17, 2017

@tomhughes any strong opinion either way? I think this is ready to merge from my perspective if you are ok with the token being there.

@tomhughes

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tomhughes

tomhughes Sep 17, 2017

Member

@willwhite sorry, there aren't any significant technical issues, but I had concerns around switching to what is essentially a commercial service as the default so I've been taking soundings offline around that issue.

Member

tomhughes commented Sep 17, 2017

@willwhite sorry, there aren't any significant technical issues, but I had concerns around switching to what is essentially a commercial service as the default so I've been taking soundings offline around that issue.

@tomhughes

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tomhughes

tomhughes Sep 29, 2017

Member

Well those are both commercial as well - the GraphHopper case is confusing because it's the name of both the software and also now of a service built on that software.

Member

tomhughes commented Sep 29, 2017

Well those are both commercial as well - the GraphHopper case is confusing because it's the name of both the software and also now of a service built on that software.

@karussell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@karussell

karussell Oct 2, 2017

Contributor

Another possibility is to pick an engine randomly.

Another possibility would be to pick ORS as it is a run by a University, but they now offer also commercial services based on their routing engine ;)

As all available routing engines are basically commercial services, we could maybe

You have to differentiate here: all routing engines are truly open source with an open source license, they just have a commercial hosted service based on the open source engine. Of course I see your point but naming the engines commercial services is plain wrong. Also it might be interesting to discuss: if there is an engine without a company in the background - would this be really more sustainable/good for OSM?

the GraphHopper case is confusing because it's the name of both the software and also now of a service built on that software

Might be, still our commercial solution is the "GraphHopper Directions API".

Contributor

karussell commented Oct 2, 2017

Another possibility is to pick an engine randomly.

Another possibility would be to pick ORS as it is a run by a University, but they now offer also commercial services based on their routing engine ;)

As all available routing engines are basically commercial services, we could maybe

You have to differentiate here: all routing engines are truly open source with an open source license, they just have a commercial hosted service based on the open source engine. Of course I see your point but naming the engines commercial services is plain wrong. Also it might be interesting to discuss: if there is an engine without a company in the background - would this be really more sustainable/good for OSM?

the GraphHopper case is confusing because it's the name of both the software and also now of a service built on that software

Might be, still our commercial solution is the "GraphHopper Directions API".

@joostschouppe

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@joostschouppe

joostschouppe Oct 2, 2017

Couldn't we temporarily merge this? Or: isn't the damage to the OSM brand of having a non-functional router on the front page bigger than the damage from giving undue promotion to a company? We can take all the time in the world to argue about the principles, but preferably while the frontpage is functional.

EDIT: or we could just remove the OSRM option in the routing until we get this sorted...

joostschouppe commented Oct 2, 2017

Couldn't we temporarily merge this? Or: isn't the damage to the OSM brand of having a non-functional router on the front page bigger than the damage from giving undue promotion to a company? We can take all the time in the world to argue about the principles, but preferably while the frontpage is functional.

EDIT: or we could just remove the OSRM option in the routing until we get this sorted...

@tomhughes

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tomhughes

tomhughes Oct 2, 2017

Member

@karussell My logic is that where the routing service being used is the commercial version, with the same routing rules (and potentially additional third party data) then we should name it as what it is, namely the name of the commercial service.

If it's just using the same software but is otherwise independent then I have no problem using the name of the software, as we have been doing with OSM until now.

Member

tomhughes commented Oct 2, 2017

@karussell My logic is that where the routing service being used is the commercial version, with the same routing rules (and potentially additional third party data) then we should name it as what it is, namely the name of the commercial service.

If it's just using the same software but is otherwise independent then I have no problem using the name of the software, as we have been doing with OSM until now.

@karussell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@karussell

karussell Oct 2, 2017

Contributor

@karussell My logic is that where the routing service being used is the commercial version, with the same routing rules

Understood, then indeed "GraphHopper" could be misleading, but "GraphHopper Directions API" might be too long. Maybe "GraphHopper API"?

Contributor

karussell commented Oct 2, 2017

@karussell My logic is that where the routing service being used is the commercial version, with the same routing rules

Understood, then indeed "GraphHopper" could be misleading, but "GraphHopper Directions API" might be too long. Maybe "GraphHopper API"?

@Komzpa

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Komzpa

Komzpa Oct 2, 2017

Another way to solve it is to change design to show [foot] [cycle] [car] choice, making requests to all three engines and showing them as alternative routes, labeling them as 'provided by OSRM / Valhalla / GraphHopper' in route instructions.

Komzpa commented Oct 2, 2017

Another way to solve it is to change design to show [foot] [cycle] [car] choice, making requests to all three engines and showing them as alternative routes, labeling them as 'provided by OSRM / Valhalla / GraphHopper' in route instructions.

@Nakaner

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Nakaner

Nakaner Oct 6, 2017

Does anyone know if Mapbox's routing service uses unmodified OSM data? Or do they use a modified version of OSM as they use for their rendered maps?

Nakaner commented Oct 6, 2017

Does anyone know if Mapbox's routing service uses unmodified OSM data? Or do they use a modified version of OSM as they use for their rendered maps?

@daniel-j-h

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@daniel-j-h

daniel-j-h Oct 30, 2017

Small update from the Open Source Routing Machine folks re. demo server:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osrm-talk/2017-October/001545.html

Disclaimer: I work on OSRM and am with Mapbox.

daniel-j-h commented Oct 30, 2017

Small update from the Open Source Routing Machine folks re. demo server:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osrm-talk/2017-October/001545.html

Disclaimer: I work on OSRM and am with Mapbox.

@pnorman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pnorman

pnorman Oct 30, 2017

Contributor

Small update from the Open Source Routing Machine folks re. demo server:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osrm-talk/2017-October/001545.html

Do you know if the Mapbox freeflow traffic data is open, or if its a closed product?

Contributor

pnorman commented Oct 30, 2017

Small update from the Open Source Routing Machine folks re. demo server:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osrm-talk/2017-October/001545.html

Do you know if the Mapbox freeflow traffic data is open, or if its a closed product?

@danpat

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danpat

danpat Nov 2, 2017

This PR can be closed, no need to merge - router.project-osrm.org should be significantly more stable going forward, and will only run on stable OSRM releases.

danpat commented Nov 2, 2017

This PR can be closed, no need to merge - router.project-osrm.org should be significantly more stable going forward, and will only run on stable OSRM releases.

@willwhite willwhite closed this Nov 2, 2017

@willwhite willwhite deleted the willwhite:osrm-demo-server branch Nov 2, 2017

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