Thanks for your lightning-fast reply! - Content understood. Analysing and improving the profile would be beyond my "retired IT person's" experience. Do you know who wrote the "River" profile - Perhaps they would be keen to improve it?
Does anyone else out there feel like examining this? Cheers PaulW ================= On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:40:58 AM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote: > > I cannot say much more. AFAIK it is rather experimental profile and it's > setting is simple, probably what is a water object is routeable. Finer > details are not addressed. > > You can analyze the profile content and aventually improve it by > additional logic based on water related osm tagging. > > 31. srpna 2016 12:36:01 CEST, 'P Wat' via Osmand <[email protected] > <javascript:>> napsal: >> >> Thank you Poutnik for your input. >> After some false starts then trial and error, "River" mode now >> functioning OK, but .... >> Some of the routes presented by Brouter-River-mode/Osmand are >> un-navigable. >> >> For example, checking stretches of the River Thames known to me:- >> (Pic1) This route is shown going over the weir rather than through the >> lock. 51.559888, -0.873266. >> (Pic2) Shows a navigable route via a lock, not over the weir. 51.567255, >> -0.76882. >> (Pic3) This absurd route is via minor streams and ditches. Should go >> south from 51.432725, -0.515320, not north. >> (Pic4) = Road map of Pic3. >> Several similar instances already found elsewhere. >> >> These anomalies would make route-planning in "foreign" waters, seriously >> flawed! >> Is this caused by the "River" algorithm? >> Regards >> Paul W >> >> > -- > Sent from my phone via Android email client K-9. > Please, forgive my brevity. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Osmand" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
