-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Gerald A schrieb: | I'm not clear if the routing is realtime or computed in advance, but | I'm not sure | more traffic information makes any difference whatsoever to the | "noise" suggestion. | | I might be missing something, but assume that there are N drivers with | the same satnav system. Now, they get an update on traffic and are | diverted to an alternate route. Without some fudge/noise factor, | wouldn't you simply be moving the congestion to another route? | (Assuming that N is a significant number of drivers, and they are | fairly close together on the preliminary congested route).
No. because: a) They do not start at the same time at the same point. b) They get updated traffic-info and are rerouted while ~ driving. Thus 2 things may happen: 1) Drivers without updated traffic-info cause a traffic-jam and you are routed around them. 2) Traffic slows down significantly, more people are routed around it and therenever is a traffic-jam but the shorter route is used by as many cars as it can handle. Thus of cause active traffic-info is the recommed solution and noise MAY BE a fallback if you do not get such info. If you know that there is no problem, it makes no sense to drive a longer path. If you do know there is one, you will drive around it anyway. Thus only in the absense of such info a less perfect way to avoid such jams is advisable. Marcus | | Thanks, | Gerald. | | _______________________________________________ | Routing mailing list | [email protected] | http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/routing -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHzW5Wf1hPnk3Z0cQRAosbAKDRbpaqXAAV97eyjRL93mD0oT+qyQCgoeSN AhCiu4QTF5ob5F/wJEG8F34= =T1eV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Routing mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/routing
