At https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=59.675266%2C9.618959%3B59.67454%2C9.620676 , OSRM and Valhalla do find the ‘obvious’ route, GraphHopper does not.
I suppose the problem is in the map. but I can’t see anything wrong with it.
Can anyone give me a hint as to how to edit that map?
I don’t think that there is something wrong in the data. For the normal “foot“ profile we exclude a few tricky or dangerous ways like this (it is tagged with mtb:scale=2).
However these ways are allowed for the “hike” profile.
The path in question is indded hard biking in the real world. And I’ll leave MTB tagging to the local bikers.
But – there seems to be a difference between the ‘foot’ profile at https://tinyurl.com/openstreetmapfoot and the ‘walking’ profile at GraphHopper Maps | Route Planner ?
I can’t ‘foot’ the path on OSM, but I can ‘walking’ it on graphhopper’s own web page? Maybe they use different versions of the map?
All the paths in the area have a T1 hiking difficulty. When the path is graded for hiking, is the MTB difficulty relevant for walking on foot?
Please see under “settings” at GraphHopper Maps that there is a “standard“ and a hiking profile and in the link you use profile=hike
When the path is graded for hiking, is the MTB difficulty relevant for walking on foot?
At the moment we consider it relevant, yes. But I’m also not 100% sure of this - @ratrun can you explain this in more detail?
See the discussion in this issue
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.