You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
OSRM routes 1000x faster than pgrouting. It is very lightweight and was able to handle 200 concurrent connections on modest hardware without breaking a sweat. It installs without issue and imports files quickly.
That being said, it's easier to use than pgrouting, with only one gotcha:
OSRM doesn't support costs/weights right now; but it does support speed and routing by road type and one-way/turn restrictions.
Until they support LUA-based weight/costs (planned feature), I think the following solution should work:
By assigning walkable road types a new psuedo-road type based on safety we can trick the routing engine into routing by safest route.
Each psuedo-road type can have a speed assigned to it. We'll make the safest ones have the lowest speed and prefer the lowest speed (as the "foot" routing profile already does).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
OSRM routes 1000x faster than pgrouting. It is very lightweight and was able to handle 200 concurrent connections on modest hardware without breaking a sweat. It installs without issue and imports files quickly.
That being said, it's easier to use than pgrouting, with only one gotcha:
OSRM doesn't support costs/weights right now; but it does support speed and routing by road type and one-way/turn restrictions.
Until they support LUA-based weight/costs (planned feature), I think the following solution should work:
By assigning walkable road types a new psuedo-road type based on safety we can trick the routing engine into routing by safest route.
Each psuedo-road type can have a speed assigned to it. We'll make the safest ones have the lowest speed and prefer the lowest speed (as the "foot" routing profile already does).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: