You are not logged in.

#1 2021-01-12 17:41:21

karussell
Member
Registered: 2012-07-26
Posts: 101

Improving GraphHopper route planning

As one of the developers of the GraphHopper routing engine, I would like to learn what improvements should be made from the point of view of the OSM community. Regarding the routes suggested by GraphHopper on openstreetmap.org or graphhopper.com/maps (no matter which vehicle profiles). I am especially interested in error patterns that happen frequently and in dangerous route suggestions.

Cross-posted to the German forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtop … pid=814798

Last edited by karussell (2021-01-12 17:44:58)


graphhopper.com route planning for your software

Offline

#2 2021-01-12 21:01:20

SK53
Member
Registered: 2009-01-11
Posts: 595

Re: Improving GraphHopper route planning

There was a lengthy discussion on IRC today about penalties for border-crossings (particularly with respect to avoiding Kalingrad Oblast for travel to Lithuania & Latvia). This may have particular relevance for the UK now. Border facilities are, however, poorly mapped on OSM, and I'm not aware of suitable tags to indicate the length of formalities (e.g., Argentina/Chile crossings on Tierra del Fuego may take an hour: at least on a bus all bags are x-rayed), which likely differ between private & goods vehicles.

Richard Fairhurst pointed to this old issue: https://discuss.graphhopper.com/t/restr … ries/229/5.

Offline

#3 2021-01-13 00:40:01

maro21
Member
From: Wrocław
Registered: 2018-03-06
Posts: 628

Re: Improving GraphHopper route planning

karussell wrote:

As one of the developers of the GraphHopper routing engine, I would like to learn what improvements should be made from the point of view of the OSM community.

Thank you for asking.
The main issue I have with GraphHopper is that it doesn't recognize U turn restriction when "via" member is a way.

So relation:
type=restriction
restriction=no_u_turn
way (from)
way (via)
way (to)
just doesn't work.
OSRM doesn't have a problem with it. But GraphHopper router works only when "via" member is a node.

Offline

#4 2021-01-14 17:02:53

karussell
Member
Registered: 2012-07-26
Posts: 101

Re: Improving GraphHopper route planning

Thank you for your answers.

Yes, crossing borders is an issue. Our goal here is to define the different countries via the data from OSM (we call this currently spatial rules) and then being able to avoid them via our customizable routing feature: https://www.graphhopper.com/blog/2020/0 … e-routing/

The main issue I have with GraphHopper is that it doesn't recognize U turn restriction when "via" member is a way.

Yes, unfortunately this is still not supported: https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/446

Last edited by karussell (2021-01-14 17:03:03)


graphhopper.com route planning for your software

Offline

#5 2021-01-14 20:48:25

maro21
Member
From: Wrocław
Registered: 2018-03-06
Posts: 628

Re: Improving GraphHopper route planning

karussell wrote:

Yes, unfortunately this is still not supported: https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/446

Oh, why? It was reported 5 years ago. Is it diffucult to code it or there isn't anyone to do it?

Offline

#6 2021-01-14 21:09:00

karussell
Member
Registered: 2012-07-26
Posts: 101

Re: Improving GraphHopper route planning

I wouldn't say it is simple, but at least conceptionally it is clear how to do it. Still it hasn't yet a top priority for us and/or our community. If the community wants it we would love to get such a feature smile. But as the first contribution this is probably not the best. To get warm with the code and dev tools we have separate issues: https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhop … t+issue%22


graphhopper.com route planning for your software

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB