LoRouter: more profiles needed, with descriptions
Gathering feedback
Hi. I have a few suggestions to make LoRouter more usable as a premium feature.
- There need to be descriptions for the built-in profiles, more than just the name. They're quite mysterious. For example, I thought "LoGravel" was ideal for my AWD car, but found that it routes down bike paths, so it appears to be a cycling profile.
- Need a cycling profile that avoids major roads in the city, willing instead to go extra distance on quiet roads and bike routes. I can't use LoRoadCycling because it prefers suicide by traffic. I found an old "safety.brf" of forgotten origin in my computer that works much better.
- Need a cycling profile that doesn't doesn't route down highway=footway, footway=sidewalk. In my area, unless tagged otherwise, it's illegal to cycle on sidewalks. (It's also slower.) So I can't use LoMTB either. Perhaps a checkbox option?
Personally I'm comfortable with editing profiles, but for general use... Expectations are higher when it's a premium-priced feature, no? I know you're working on it.
I like this idea 
Hi, the tolerance to traffic which Road cycling profile currently has should be greatly reduced in the new update. Thanks to pointing out to the sidewalks and description issues though. Radim
Hi, the tolerance to traffic which Road cycling profile currently has should be greatly reduced in the new update. Thanks to pointing out to the sidewalks and description issues though. Radim
Hi. In the related topic titled "LoRouter MTB profile: inconsistent barrier handling", I wrote a comment, then edited the comment to remove it, saying "Ignore this comment, my mistake.". I was referring to the comment, but not the topic. The topic is still, in my mind, a valid topic - unless you've already fixed it. Thanks.
Hi. In the related topic titled "LoRouter MTB profile: inconsistent barrier handling", I wrote a comment, then edited the comment to remove it, saying "Ignore this comment, my mistake.". I was referring to the comment, but not the topic. The topic is still, in my mind, a valid topic - unless you've already fixed it. Thanks.
As the topic is still removed, may I ask what it was about? Maybe I can do something about it (if Locus team is pulling upstream profile changes regularly).
As the topic is still removed, may I ask what it was about? Maybe I can do something about it (if Locus team is pulling upstream profile changes regularly).
Hi, I hope it is ok to restore the removed (invisible to you, I presume) topic. The Locus profiles in our Brouter fork are not updated from upstream repositories directly. Change request to them or pull request is welcome. If you update upstream repository, let me know please, I will use that change.
https://help.locusmap.eu/topic/24460-lorouter-mtb-profile-inconsistent-barrier-handling#comment-97044
Hi, I hope it is ok to restore the removed (invisible to you, I presume) topic. The Locus profiles in our Brouter fork are not updated from upstream repositories directly. Change request to them or pull request is welcome. If you update upstream repository, let me know please, I will use that change.
https://help.locusmap.eu/topic/24460-lorouter-mtb-profile-inconsistent-barrier-handling#comment-97044
Replies have been locked on this page!