-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 406
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Elevation Calculation Ignores Tunnel #685
Comments
Yeah, that's unfortunately still true. Graphhopper fixed that a while ago: Probably a part of the code we're not using for ORS. Any thoughts backend devs? |
@aoles You are underestimating the length of that tunnel. It does not start where the straight segment begins, but instead already in the bent part (see sattelite maps to check, https://www.google.com/maps/place/Gran+Canaria/@28.0331134,-15.7559019,2595m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0xc40855504bf07c1:0x2ec916c8a5acdb16!8m2!3d27.9202202!4d-15.5474373 ) |
Oh, right! Thanks for pointing this out @HendrikLeuschner. |
I think the problem is that we actually don't use GH's code to do the interpolation. |
The tunnel is broken up into three segments. I think what's wrong is the elevation is sampled at the beginnings/ends of each of the segments as opposed to the beginning/end of the whole tunnel. |
Thanks @1papaya for sharing your observations! Actually, the splitting into segments occurs only when traveling from South to North: 490956948 & 350064679. In the other direction (such as in your example) the tunnel is represented by a single way. |
Interesting. So we are just missing a parameter I guess? Should be easy to fix by @rabidllama or someone |
I'm happy to fix it, but if someone else would like to take it from here I don't mind handing it over either. Just change the issue assignment, thanks! |
Just meant that @rabidllama is probably the one to put it into our live servers. But he probably needs some input first. |
Thanks @HendrikLeuschner ! As far as I can tell this is not just about adding a missing parameter to the configuration file but rather requires changes to the backend as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but any GraphHopper-specific configuration parameters need to be explicitly mapped from the Besides, enabling the interpolation requires rebuilding the graphs, so it needs to go through a proper release cycle anyway. |
Also at bridges in the mountains the calculations are not correct. |
Thank you @naalang for the additional insight. Elevation for tunnels and bridges is currently not properly resolved because both need interpolation being turned on which is not the case currently. I'm sorry this has been an issue for so long now, somehow it went out of our radar after you reported it for the first time. I will make sure this is fixed ASAP. |
Might also be due to the spatial uncertainty of the data, at least for bridges I can see this resulting in the valley's elevation being used. |
The problem is not so prominent for bridges probably because most of the time they are single line segments without any intermediate nodes, so there is not really anything to interpolate. But occasionally it might make quite a difference, for example in the case of the Millau Viaduct. |
Here's what I did
Computed a car route which includes a tunnel that goes through a gigantic mountain:
Here's what I got
The elevation profile returned includes the elevation being calculated as if the road goes up and over the mountain, like so:
Here's what I was expecting
The elevation profile ought keep the elevation constant while the car is going through the tunnel. Or, even interpolate the elevation on one side of the tunnel to the other, if the tunnel has an elevation change going through it.
Here's what I think could be improved
Great service!! Very well done!! :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: