Re: [OSRM-talk] OSRM Website Re-Design
Hi, On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:30:23AM +0200, Patrick Niklaus wrote: > the OSRM website got a long needed redesign yesterday thanks to Amy > Lee Walton and Lauren Budorick. > > http://project-osrm.org > > and > > http://map.project-osrm.org The map doesn't work for me on Firefox 42.0b1. The console reports only this: SecurityError: The operation is insecure. [ bundle.js (line 7) ] Works fine on Chromium on the same machine. Regards Sarah ___ OSRM-talk mailing list OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk
Re: [OSRM-talk] Foot profile
Hi,
On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 12:23:53PM +0200, Emmanuel Bégué wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> >
> > That's an old unmaintained one which really should be removed.
> > Please try one of those two:
> >
> > https://github.com/sosm/cbf-routing-profiles/blob/master/foot-city.lua
> > https://github.com/sosm/cbf-routing-profiles/blob/master/foot-hiking.lua
> >
> > They work fine against OSRM versions 0.3.3 - 0.3.9.
>
> Ok, many thanks for your answer; I followed your instructions and was
> able to use those profiles! So that's great, and thank you again. ;-)
>
> Unfortunately the initial problem isn't solved; some points in Paris
> (lots of them) are apparently non-navigable by foot -- many times, for
> instance, at the center of roundabouts (but not only, and not always).
>
> It's quite strange since when one asks to navigate to/from the middle
> of the river, or the center of a building, or the middle of a highway,
> a path is found that goes to the nearest accessible point.
>
> So it seems, in principle, a path should always be found? What makes
> pathfinding fail in some cases?
Looking at your initial example 48.88368971897955,2.332395315170288,
the problem here is the pedestrian area
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/108166051
OSRM takes that as a way which is routable (highway=pedestrian being
walkable and all) but as there are no footways that leave the area,
there is no way to get out.
Personally, I think this is a tagging error. Pedestrian areas always
should be connected to the way network. As a quick fix for your routing,
you can exclude all ways with area=yes from routing. Simply add something
like this in way_function() of your profile:
if way.tags:Find('area') ~= '' then
return 0
end
But this might do more harm than good.
Kind regards
Sarah
___
OSRM-talk mailing list
OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk
Re: [OSRM-talk] Foot profile
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:48:56AM +0200, Emmanuel Bégué wrote: > Hello, > > I'm trying to use foot.lua from cbf-routing-profiles > direct link: > https://github.com/sosm/cbf-routing-profiles/blob/master/foot.lua That's an old unmaintained one which really should be removed. Please try one of those two: https://github.com/sosm/cbf-routing-profiles/blob/master/foot-city.lua https://github.com/sosm/cbf-routing-profiles/blob/master/foot-hiking.lua They work fine against OSRM versions 0.3.3 - 0.3.9. > Then I tried to remove the four first lines "require..." from > foot.lua, as no require is used in current profiles (and car.lua even > says in a comment "function temporarily inlined"). Those requires are necessecary. The library files can be found in lib/ and you need to supply the directory path to osrm-extract and osrm-prepare, like that: LUA_PATH="$scriptdir/lib/?.lua" ./osrm-extract see https://github.com/sosm/cbf-routing-profiles/blob/master/compile_profiles.sh for how those profiles are used with OSRM in osm.ch's production environment. > Is this syntax documented? Or, how does one write a profile from > scratch? (Or at least, how does one read a profile?) > > (I would be happy to recursively test little modifications to existing > profiles, but since extract/prepare takes a long time, it doesn't seem > like a practical solution...) That's what I did. Use a smaller extract for testing and it works ok. Cheers Sarah > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Emmanuel Bégué wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > >> > >> We have adapted foot profiles on our Swiss installation[1], which seem > >> to work fairly ok. Code is here: > >> https://github.com/sosm/cbf-routing-profiles > > > > Thanks!! I'll give it a try ;-) > > > > Regards, > > EB > > ___ > OSRM-talk mailing list > OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk ___ OSRM-talk mailing list OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk
Re: [OSRM-talk] Foot profile
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 07:18:34PM +0200, Emmanuel Bégué wrote: > Thanks for a prompt reply, but how would poor data quality explain the > fact that two points that are very very near one another result in > such a different outcome? > > Where can I find more information in how to write profiles? > > And, in your experience, would a "car" profile that would basically > accept to take any road, and ignore road directions, be an acceptable > approximation for a foot profile? We have adapted foot profiles on our Swiss installation[1], which seem to work fairly ok. Code is here: https://github.com/sosm/cbf-routing-profiles (foot-city.lua for 'city walking', i.e. shorter route, foot-hiking.lua for 'hiking', i.e. less asphalt, quieter roads) Main gotcha: the profile misuses speed to get appropriate route preferences. The frontend therefore ignores the times it gets from OSRM and simply computes its own using the distance and a fixed speed. Cheers Sarah [1] http://routing.osm.ch > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Dennis Luxen wrote: > > Salut Emmanuel, > > > > the foot profile is the least maintained. And foot data is among the most > > inconsistent tagged data in OSM. You routing data probably broke into many, > > many unconnected pieces. > > > > —Dennis > > > > > > Am 29.04.2014 um 18:29 schrieb Emmanuel Bégué : > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> Trying to use Project-OSRM for directions by foot, it seems some > >> points simply don't work, either as start or stop points, whereas > >> points that are very near, work fine (as well as some points that > >> shouldn't be reachable because for example they're in the water). > >> > >> For example the point 48.88368971897955,2.332395315170288 (north of > >> Paris), used as a start or an end point, always results in 207, > >> "Cannot find route between points". > >> > >> But if we use instead 48.88371088449246,2.332277297973633 (a few > >> meters away) then everything's fine; or if we use the offending point > >> with a car profile on Project-OSRM demo site: no problem. > >> > >> No problem either if we begin or end our journey in the middle of a > >> river: 48.85939286077621,2.331901788711548, so it's clearly not the > >> case that the destination point is somehow "unreachable" by foot. > >> > >> I have tried to set the offending point to the nearest node with > >> "locate" but that didn't help: > >>locate?48.88368971897955,2.332395315170288 => 48.883674,2.332385 > >> -- but that last point doesn't work any better. > >> > >> How can I investigate this? (How do we ask Project-OSRM to print more > >> elaborate error messages?) > >> > >> I'm using Project-OSRM version before 3.9, the stock "foot.lua" > >> profile and OSM data for France from Geofabrik. > >> > >> Thanks for any pointer. > >> > >> Regards, > >> EB > >> > >> ___ > >> OSRM-talk mailing list > >> OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk > > > > > > ___ > > OSRM-talk mailing list > > OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk > > ___ > OSRM-talk mailing list > OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk ___ OSRM-talk mailing list OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk
