instruction steps should include mode separately

[emiltin]

special instructions have been added to indicate when you enter/leave contraflow, ex when you start/stop pushing your bike.

the problem is that you're not told which way to turn. for example you're told to continue on bike, but should you go left, right or straight?

i suggest to move the mode out as a separate code. this would also have the benefit that you can easily identify sections of the route as ferry/train/etc.

[emiltin]

another major problem with the current implementation is that you cannot mark footways, pedestrian streets, etc as pushing in both direction. you have only the concept of contraflow, but this doesn't cover the use cases.

(see ExtractorCallback.cpp line 100 onwards.)

again, a mode flag for each way would solve it.

[emiltin]

lua script should return a mode for each direction. pushing of bikes sometimes happen in one direction, sometimes in both.

[emiltin]

when would be a good time to work on this? we have a working implementation in iibjkecph fork that could be used as a starting point. only thing is repo is now quite far behind the main repo.

[emiltin]

Hey @DennisOSRM, if a PR was created, would you want to merge it? This issues is one of the things blocking us from moving from our custom branch back to the mainline dev. For bike routing it's important.

Our implementation has worked for more than a year, and includes cucumber tests. The main commit was at ibikecph@b03ccfa, but it did include a few other changes if I recall correctly. basically the 'contraFlow' field is replaced with a 'mode' field. When processing a way segment, the lua script sets the mode value (ex 1=bike, 2=push, 3=ferry), see ex https:/ibikecph/Project-OSRM/blob/edge/profiles/bicycle_fast.lua#L298.

The mode value is then passed on to the as part of query rresults, so you can show 'push the bike' or 'take the ferry' to the user when approriate.

[emiltin]

See https:/ibikecph/Project-OSRM/blob/edge/features/bicycle/mode.feature for the passing tests.

[DennisOSRM]

Happy to consider a PR. But there is no blanket yes or no to getting a PR merged. It boils down to three things:

• clear approach
• efficiency (in terms of space and time)
• code quality (think not inelegant)

[emiltin]

right. i just wanted to get your opinion on the basic ideas - replacing the contraflow bool with a mode value.

[emiltin]

it would mean a few changes to the lua interface and to the instructions returned.

[DennisOSRM]

right. i just wanted to get your opinion on the basic ideas - replacing the contraflow bool with a mode value.

What does that mean for data structure size?

it would mean a few changes to the lua interface and to the instructions returned.

What kind of changes?

[emiltin]

regarding data size, it don't think it changed anything in our branch, since the contraflow bool was not a bit field, and we just changed it to an unsigned char. if the current develop branch only uses 1 bit for the contraflow, you probably need to expand this to 2 or 3 bits for the mode field if you want to support a list like: bike, push, ferry, train. i haven't looked into how structs are packed etc. but i would expect a minor increase in data size. alternatively a separate list of modes could be constructed, with data only for those segment that has a non-zero mode, although this would incur some performance penalty.

in the lua script, you can set the mode for each way segment. of course this can easily defualt to mode 0, so you don't have to set it explicitly, unless the mode is something else than the normal mode.

for the instructions returned in queries, the special instructions codes 'enter contraflow' and 'leave contraflow' would not be used anymore. instead, and additional integer is passed for each instruction, containing the mode (0,1,2,3..)

[DennisOSRM]

regarding data size, it don't think it changed anything in our branch, since the contraflow bool was not a bit field, and we just changed it to an unsigned char. if the current develop branch only uses 1 bit for the contraflow, you probably need to expand this to 2 or 3 bits for the mode field if you want to support a list like: bike, push, ferry, train. i haven't looked into how structs are packed etc. but i would expect a minor increase in data size.

Can you provide links to current develop branch files (incl lines) where you would introduce changes? Otherwise this is too much of a speculation. Also, we need solid numbers on the size of the structs, because even minor changes replicate to lots of RAM on the planet-wide scale.

alternativelive a separate list of modes could be constructed, with data only for those segment that has a non-zero mode, although this would incur some performance penalty.

sounds complicated.

in the lua script, you can set the mode for each way segment. of course this can easily defualt to mode 0, so you don't have to set it explicitly, unless the mode is something else than the normal mode.

makes sense.

for the instructions returned in queries, the special instructions codes 'enter contraflow' and 'leave contraflow' would not be used anymore. instead, and additional integer is passed for each instruction, containing the mode (0,1,2,3..)

The client has to make sure to interpret these modes correctly, right?

[emiltin]

the client can use the modes to enhance the instructions shown to the user. ex by showing 'take the ferry ...' instead of just 'turn right at..'. but ignoring them will not break anything as such.

in case you think the changes to lua and query results makes sense, and would be something you would merge (if implementated nicely) then i could look into the data sizes more closely, ie try to port the change to the current dev branch so see the effect.

[DennisOSRM]

the client can use the modes to enhance the instructions shown to the user. ex by showing 'take the ferry ...' instead of just 'turn right at..'. but ignoring them will not break anything as such.

Existing clients would need to be updated as the output format changes. Could this be done without breaking the JSON output format but enhancing it?

in case you think the changes to lua and query results makes sense, and would be something you would merge (if implementated nicely) then i could look into the data sizes more closely, ie try to port the change to the current dev branch so see the effect.

It seems that no change is necessary if one wants to stay on a default mode. This makes sense and allows for legacy scripts to continue working. Or at least conflict only minimal pain.

[emiltin]

you mean could the info be stuffed somewhere inside the existing json structure? i don't really see how to do that.
however the only change to the json would be to append an additional value to each instruction array. most client would probably just ignore the extra value?

[DennisOSRM]

you mean could the info be stuffed somewhere inside the existing json structure? i don't really see how to do that.

Yeah, feared that. But that's a common inconvenience with new features

however the only change to the json would be to append an additional value to each instruction array. most client would probably just ignore the extra value?

Probably, yes. And if not, should be an easy fix.

[emiltin]

sounds like you're positive towards adding this feature, if it can be implemented efficiently?

[DennisOSRM]

sure

[DennisOSRM]

@emiltin can we close here?