Messages

Hi Steffen,
Es gibt eine zentrale Idee in deinem Beitrag. Du erwähnst etwas wie ,,weniger komplexe Routenberechnung für Autos, weil hauptsächlich Autobahnen genutzt werden, auf denen es weniger Kreuzungen gibt". Das ist die Idee, die Google Maps verwendet (das weiß ich), und vermutlich viele andere Routing-Engines für Autos auch. BRouter und der von BRouter abgeleitete Router in LM4 (online/offline) verwenden diese Strategie jedoch nicht. Denn BRouter steht für ,,Bicycle Router". Für BRouter sind 100 km gerade Autobahn immer noch eine Serie kleiner Segmente – dieselbe Serie wie ein Wanderweg mit vielen Kreuzungen. BRouter ist von Grund auf langsam. Auch die Komplexität der Routing-Profile spielt hier eine Rolle. Natürlich gibt es eine Lösung für diese langsame Berechnung – die Nutzung von vorab berechneten, kleinen Kacheln, in denen lange Straßenabschnitte vereinfacht sind und Pfade, die für Autos irrelevant sind, weggelassen werden. Aber das wäre zumindest im Moment eine große Änderung für uns.

Hier ist die Idee, die du erfunden hast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraction_hierarchies

Dobrý den, striktně vzato rozdíly nejsou v použitém algoritmu, ale v tom, jak se pracuje s hodnocením jednotlivých dílčích úseků. Tyhle rozdíly jsou dost velké. Počítá se s povrchem, charakterem cesty a s rozdílem nadmořské výšky (rozdíl je i v hodnocení do kopce/z kopce). Do budoucna se bude brát v potaz i okolí cesty/trailu, ne jen jeho charakter a povrch, takže např. stezka v CHKO bude upřednostněna před (třeba trochu kratší) stezkou skrze třeba vytěžený lom nebo nějaký brownfiled. Touring - preference značených cyklotras, Gravel - polňačky. MTB - je tam posunovátko "dificulty" které nastavuje interně kombinaci vlivů jako převýšení a "šutrovitost", pokud se ví. MTB šoupátko vpravo (technical) předpokládá opravdu technicky ale i fyzicky zdatného jezdce. Tady bych řekl, že je oproti mapám.cz dost rozdíl, v Locusu je "technical" skutečné MTB. Silniční kolo - ano, silnice druhé a třetí třídy (s možností říct, zda chci použít cyklostezky nebo ne). Obecně málokdy je pro nějaký povrch striktní zákaz, spíše je to tak, že např. 100m po šotolině na silničním kole je jako ...2(pro ilustraci) km po asfaltu.

Hi all. The problem is: Neither Brouter or the Locus internal router (LoRouter) can work with osm tagging that has arbitrary value. Both routers only see a large SET of known values. This set is possible to extend, but it is still a limited set. For example in access=private, access=permit the values are "private", "permit". These are known values, of course. In maxheight=3.75, "3.75" is not a known value. For this reason, routing aware of tunnel heights e.t.c is not likely to happen soon, unfortunately. Radim, backend dev.

Dobrý den. Případ les u Jedovnic: Je tam skutečně zákaz vstupu kvůli kalamitě. Jak kalamitu dostal Seznam formou "no-go polygonu" do svých map a plánovače? Podle fcb odkazu na mapách (viz obrázek) nejspíš ručně. O spolehlivé, aktualizované databázi všech možných uzavírek nevíme ani pro ČR, natož třeba pro Evropu nebo dokonce svět. (Locus má uživatele po celém světě a věnovat velké redakční úsilí jen v ČR prostě nestačí). Technicky by rozšíření LoRouteru o možnost uzavírek problém nebyl, problém je management těch uzavírek, a to alespoň pro Evropu. Řešením by bylo pečlivé mapování v OSM datasetu, který náš routing využívá. Pak by nic externího nebylo třeba. (To je nejčistší a správné řešení).   

Hello Lupin.
This is a good point.
Current state of .brf files and lookups.dat can be seen here
There are a few additions in the node section (for the exact reason you mentioned), like safety_rope=yes or ladder=yes. However none of the keys you have named specifically are referenced for nodes now. So this is something to consider, but a few overpass_turbo queries should be done before to check the frequency of their usage.
Short note on how tags are used:
- routing as such
- detection of warnings
- time adjustments for walking profiles
Thanks for your point!   

I have tried routing with the LoRouter without my own shaping points. I set a starting point and then had a circular route suggested. The MTB profile was set. Latest beta from 19.01.2024.
The route is very bad. It runs on roads although there is a gravel path in parallel and even an MTB trail with S1 (red-blue).

I have set all shaping points myself in the past to force the path. I thought I would try again to see if the profile got better. But unfortunately it still doesn't suggest any good MTB trails. So I will probably do everything by hand as I have done since then.

Hi, freischneider
Here is a link to the first half of the route from the attached txt file.
https://link.locusmap.app/r/5o6vai
I can see some places where maybe the cycling route does not need to be strictly followed (while riding MTB).
Please show specifically what is wrong here.
The red blue path we see on your screenshot is followed. (Althougt a path is not followed just because somebody mapped its mtb difficulty).

But unless I have a look into map data, this is just my guess. Please specify the location more.

sure: shared track @ web.locusmap.app-planner

Yes, the segment with warning is a secondary road without a (mapped) sidewalk. 

[But]

Hi!

Is it possible to use the route planner on imported tracks, as opposed to only tracks on the base map (e.g., OSM)?

Example: I have a bunch of tracks which represent various (short) sections of a network of off-trail routes that are not present on OSM. How can I plan a route between arbitrary points using these tracks?

Thanks!

Hi. From the computer science point of view this is certainly doable. The only real challenge is reliable detection of segments intersection. (Assuming all segments are accessible in both directions). But: such a work is a lot of work. The result would be a toy for few people imho. As a learning/hobby project this is a good idea/topic. For practical use I would follow what Michal suggested. 

I planned a route with profile 'walk' and get warned about 'heavy traffic'
The route is also not perfect, see top near scale - might probably be due to osm. I walked the route shortly and was able to use each sidewalk of the street.

BTW is there any way to deactivate these new warnings, i don't need them and map is pumped with unneeded signs?

Hi, because the warning for "heavy traffic" is just a short segment of otherwise identical street, it looks like the sidewalk is not mapped correctly. (There is no warning for secondary roads if there is sidewalk). But unless I have a look into map data, this is just my guess. Please specify the location more.

Hello all. There is a fully automated process that updates (changes e.g. names, websites, opening hours), disables or adds new points of interest. No human interaction involved. The logic may be sometimes a bit complex - e.g. "planed" or "demolished" map features are not added or are disabled, some frequent objects (cliffs, trees) have to be named or marked as a landmark, e.t.c. Yesterday some of you mapped in the osm db the wreck as inaccessible tourist attraction, so in a few days (during next update run) the point with red fence in detail (inaccessible place) should pop up in Locus. There will be no wikipedia - an id pointing to wikidata knowledge graph is currently needed for that. If somebody adds this link to osm, wiki will be processed on the 22 this month. There is already related tourist attraction - a propeller from this ship. Propeller Anyway wrecks in general (not tourist attraction tagged) are not considered and it is a good idea to include them. They will be added in the next batched addition.         

handling Google Maps share button should be fixed

thanks @Marek, and the issue reported many times, of search results from > 10,000km away at the top of the list, when there are closer matches on the map < 10km away?

This is not forgotten, just there is no "fix". There is tons of work to determine relevance of results and: Not everything is under my control. Also the rule that closer "match" is more important is oversimplification as we (not just me) agree. I may do some tweaks but proper solution takes time.

Sorry, the profile is there. I see.

Hello Lupin,
sorry for being late, but this is hard to investigate.
 - Locus router (both offline and online) is not guarantied to give results identical to Brouter project. Why is that: 1.not identical data are used for calculation. (This seems not to be the case here as your profiles work in both Locus router and Brouter). 2.There is constant development on both projects which we sync only sometimes (there may be minor changes in the algorithms e.t.c). We aim to keep online and offline version of Locus router identical.
 - Maybe more appropriate question here is: Is the calculated route wrong? How much error is there regarding your routing profile? Which one is the "right" one?
Would you share your custom profile please?
Radim.

Using online search a little bit and thinking about it a bit more, this is my summary:
- Google data repository is unmatched, beating Locus and any other searches hands down, whatever they try, for years to come
- Locus, for strategic reasons, also with iOS support in mind needs this independent online search
- on Android the Google API search is at no cost to Asamm, as Menion stated
- combining both searches technically seems not feasible, as per Menion's response
- to me, the obvious approach is
-- to have a Locus Search for Android and iOS alike
-- put a Google Search as separate function into the Android version

That would stop any need for tough comparisons and discussions, a d empower users to make their own choice, based on their needs.
Giving USERS a choice may not be a technician's first emotional approach, but is beneficial for all parties in the end.

And above approach would not add complexity to the UI a d user experience.

Hope is the last thing to die ;-)

Cheers
Michael

Hi Michael, just a few notes. Of course I agree Google (and few others big boys too) are rather impossible to match. But the current state of what we have in terms of "data repository", as you put it, is just the first step really. In terms of quantity of data it is easy to add dozens of millions of items by mining the OSM dataset. That is a matter of configuration and will be done. (Not all at once). Accuracy outside well mapped areas is not so great, sadly, as we know. Better search engine is hard but doable of course, that is just a lot of work again - these real world data use cases are not typically solved by technology providers. There is also tons of work making all this machinery to update data and talk to other pieces of machinery. But I don't see an easier way how to put together a consistent, world wide dataset of places and "points of interest" relevant to hike bike context. Of course G will find you the nearest "laundromat" way better than L. But how would you search for the nearest fire pits (worldwide). Of course there are some datasets available but maintaining all this together is a hell we (I) don't want to enter. I am an expert in the osm inconsistencies and weaknesses but IMHO this dataset is really needed here.

@Andrew Heard
- There is some change: The first result in the list one gets when types a term and hits "find", is the nearest one. There will still be map view change as this cannot be done server-side, only in new app version. But drastic changes (thousand miles away zoom&pan) should only happen sometimes, if there is no nearby result. Anyway there is (now) no sort based on distance entirely.   
- "Glitches", or "Timing issue": This indeed looks like some async programming error but it is unfortunately not that simple. The reason is: For < 1% of the questions (queries) one of the engines is not performant enough. (Think too many disk reads as opposed to fast memory reads). Once there is a migration to some other solution, this should be solved.