This object is in archive!
Which of fast/short Brouter navigation modes does the Locus trigger for foot navigation?
Answered
Which of fast/short Brouter navigation modes does the Locus trigger for foot navigation, if Brouter is chosen as a routing provider ? As Locus provides just one foot option.
In Brouter default settings, both foot/short and foot/fast are assigned to the same standard Shortest profile, so in default case it does not matter. But when an advanced Brouter user uses different navigation profiles for foot/short and foot/fast, it DOES matter.
I could do the testing myself, but the simple answer provided here a/o in Locus manual can be good info for all Brouter users, starting to experiment.
https://github.com/poutnikl/Brouter-profiles/wiki/Brouter-profiles-collection
The same question
Hello Libor,
in code is defined "foot" as a "fast" profile.
Hello Libor,
in code is defined "foot" as a "fast" profile.
Hello Menion,
thanks for the fast answer. It is pity there are not implemented both Brouter navigation modes*, to be able to switch them directly in LocusMap GUI. Sure, there is work-around in switching of Brouter mode-profile mapping.
I am aware about the way of launching Brouter, selecting the profile in the simple Brouter GUI and importing generated GPX. But the GUI way would be handy.
* In Brouter context, there is used for ( car/bike/foot + fast/short ) routing configuration the term navigation mode. The term profile is used for script based way/node evaluations, assigned to a particular mode .
Hello Menion,
thanks for the fast answer. It is pity there are not implemented both Brouter navigation modes*, to be able to switch them directly in LocusMap GUI. Sure, there is work-around in switching of Brouter mode-profile mapping.
I am aware about the way of launching Brouter, selecting the profile in the simple Brouter GUI and importing generated GPX. But the GUI way would be handy.
* In Brouter context, there is used for ( car/bike/foot + fast/short ) routing configuration the term navigation mode. The term profile is used for script based way/node evaluations, assigned to a particular mode .
I'm well aware of your idea here: http://help.locusmap.eu/topic/short-fast-pedestrian-navigation-modes-fro-brouter-navigation
Anyway till usage of BRouter will be so complicated for basic users, I do not have big interest in deeper implementation in Locus. I was checking if these is something new in BRouter API for Android and seems not.
What I miss most, is ability to define profiles manually in Locus, so there should be no need for some config of file on card or in BRouter app itself.
I'm well aware of your idea here: http://help.locusmap.eu/topic/short-fast-pedestrian-navigation-modes-fro-brouter-navigation
Anyway till usage of BRouter will be so complicated for basic users, I do not have big interest in deeper implementation in Locus. I was checking if these is something new in BRouter API for Android and seems not.
What I miss most, is ability to define profiles manually in Locus, so there should be no need for some config of file on card or in BRouter app itself.
Hehe, that is funny, Brouter seems easier than Locus for me.. :-D
But that could break the interface with OSMAnd and OruxMaps, couldnt it ? As OSMAnd relies on car/bike/foot + fast/short mode approach. Unless Arndt ( the author ) would provide a direct profile shortcut for Locus.
The profiles also refer for which transportation ( car / bike / foot ) they can be used.
Personally I can live with available ways, I just wanted to make it easier for users.
Hehe, that is funny, Brouter seems easier than Locus for me.. :-D
But that could break the interface with OSMAnd and OruxMaps, couldnt it ? As OSMAnd relies on car/bike/foot + fast/short mode approach. Unless Arndt ( the author ) would provide a direct profile shortcut for Locus.
The profiles also refer for which transportation ( car / bike / foot ) they can be used.
Personally I can live with available ways, I just wanted to make it easier for users.
I see no reason why such options should not co-exists. Anyway my requirements on BRouter should be discussed on BRouter Google Group and not here.
I see no reason why such options should not co-exists. Anyway my requirements on BRouter should be discussed on BRouter Google Group and not here.
Neither I see such a reason now... Just thinking..
I have already raised the question in Brouter forum a while ago.
Just - cooperation has 2 sides, why not to be discussed on both sides ?
For now I consider the question as closed. I will not have an extra icon. :-)
Neither I see such a reason now... Just thinking..
I have already raised the question in Brouter forum a while ago.
Just - cooperation has 2 sides, why not to be discussed on both sides ?
For now I consider the question as closed. I will not have an extra icon. :-)
Replies have been locked on this page!