Routing: Improve traffic cost model, rework Documentation for Routing #425
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…limited Denver Colorado area testing. Starting point.
…ke the most common need (routing on roads) the easiest to get to.
rustprooflabs
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Details
More routing focused improvements.
Changes
pgrouting_version_checktoextension_version_checkextension_version_checkensuresconvertextension is installedosm.route_motor_travel_time(route_vertex_id_start, route_vertex_id_end)for built-in travel-time routingpgosm.roadlookup table withtraffic_penalty_normalcolumn for additional cost-modeling scenarios for travel time scenariosTraffic Penalty notes
Expands the
pgosm.roadlookup table with atraffic_penalty_normalcolumn to use in cost model for travel-time routing scenarios.The
traffic_penaltyconcept makes sense but the name doesn't quite make sense b/c 1.0 is no penalty and 0.0 should effectively block a route. Other than that naming oddity...The values used here seem to be decent average from the limited Denver Colorado area testing I've done so far. I found some basic starting points for travel rates compared to speed limits in traffic (vague internet searching) but didn't preserve those sources.