Open-Harbor/osrm-backend
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases 3 Wiki Activity

update foot profile, add tests for access, barriers, ferries, names, surface, more

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Emil Tin
2013-09-08 22:51:44 +02:00
parent 01097f7225
commit 0f94fb9d6d
10 changed files with 567 additions and 148 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
features/foot/access.feature
+95
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
@routing @foot @access
Feature: Foot - Access tags on ways
Reference: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
Background:
Given the profile "foot"
Scenario: Foot - Access tag hierachy on ways
Then routability should be
| highway | access | foot | bothw |
| footway | | | x |
| footway | | yes | x |
| footway | | no | |
| footway | yes | | x |
| footway | yes | yes | x |
| footway | yes | no | |
| footway | no | | |
| footway | no | yes | x |
| footway | no | no | |
| motorway | | | |
| motorway | | yes | x |
| motorway | | no | |
| motorway | yes | | x |
| motorway | yes | yes | x |
| motorway | yes | no | |
| motorway | no | | |
| motorway | no | yes | x |
| motorway | no | no | |
Scenario: Foot - Overwriting implied acccess on ways
Then routability should be
| highway | access | foot | bothw |
| footway | | | x |
| motorway | | | |
| footway | no | | |
| footway | | | x |
| footway | | no | |
| motorway | yes | | x |
| motorway | | | |
| motorway | | yes | x |
Scenario: Foot - Access tags on ways
Then routability should be
| access | foot | bothw |
| | | x |
| yes | | x |
| permissive | | x |
| designated | | x |
| some_tag | | x |
| no | | |
| private | | |
| agricultural | | |
| forestery | | |
| | yes | x |
| | permissive | x |
| | designated | x |
| | some_tag | x |
| | no | |
| | private | |
| | agricultural | |
| | forestery | |
Scenario: Foot - Access tags on both node and way
Then routability should be
| access | node/access | bothw |
| yes | yes | x |
| yes | no | |
| yes | some_tag | x |
| no | yes | |
| no | no | |
| no | some_tag | |
| some_tag | yes | x |
| some_tag | no | |
| some_tag | some_tag | x |
Scenario: Foot - Access combinations
Then routability should be
| highway | access | foot | bothw |
| motorway | private | yes | x |
| footway | | permissive | x |
| track | forestry | permissive | x |
| footway | yes | no | |
| primary | | private | |
| residential | permissive | no | |
Scenario: Foot - Ignore access tags for other modes
Then routability should be
| highway | boat | motor_vehicle | moped | bothw |
| river | yes | | | |
| footway | no | | | x |
| motorway | | yes | | |
| footway | | no | | x |
| motorway | | | yes | |
| footway | | | no | x |
features/foot/access_node.feature
+50
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
@routing @foot @access
Feature: Foot - Access tags on nodes
Reference: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
Background:
Given the profile "foot"
Scenario: Foot - Access tag hierachy on nodes
Then routability should be
| node/access | node/foot | bothw |
| | | x |
| | yes | x |
| | no | |
| yes | | x |
| yes | yes | x |
| yes | no | |
| no | | |
| no | yes | x |
| no | no | |
Scenario: Foot - Overwriting implied acccess on nodes doesn't overwrite way
Then routability should be
| highway | node/access | node/foot | bothw |
| footway | | | x |
| footway | no | | |
| footway | | no | |
| motorway | | | |
| motorway | yes | | |
| motorway | | yes | |
Scenario: Foot - Access tags on nodes
Then routability should be
| node/access | node/foot | bothw |
| | | x |
| yes | | x |
| permissive | | x |
| designated | | x |
| some_tag | | x |
| no | | |
| private | | |
| agricultural | | |
| forestery | | |
| no | yes | x |
| no | permissive | x |
| no | designated | x |
| no | some_tag | x |
| yes | no | |
| yes | private | |
| yes | agricultural | |
| yes | forestery | |
features/foot/area.feature
+103
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
@routing @foot @area
Feature: Foot - Squares and other areas
Background:
Given the profile "foot"
@square
Scenario: Foot - Route along edge of a squares
Given the node map
| x | |
| a | b |
| d | c |
And the ways
| nodes | area | highway |
| xa | | primary |
| abcda | yes | residential |
When I route I should get
| from | to | route |
| a | b | abcda |
| a | d | abcda |
| b | c | abcda |
| c | b | abcda |
| c | d | abcda |
| d | c | abcda |
| d | a | abcda |
| a | d | abcda |
@building
Scenario: Foot - Don't route on buildings
Given the node map
| x | |
| a | b |
| d | c |
And the ways
| nodes | highway | area | building | access |
| xa | primary | | | |
| abcda | (nil) | yes | yes | yes |
When I route I should get
| from | to | route |
| a | b | xa |
| a | d | xa |
| b | c | xa |
| c | b | xa |
| c | d | xa |
| d | c | xa |
| d | a | xa |
| a | d | xa |
@parking
Scenario: Foot - parking areas
Given the node map
| e | | | f |
| x | a | b | y |
| | d | c | |
And the ways
| nodes | highway | amenity |
| xa | primary | |
| by | primary | |
| xefy | primary | |
| abcda | (nil) | parking |
When I route I should get
| from | to | route |
| x | y | xa,abcda,by |
| y | x | by,abcda,xa |
| a | b | abcda |
| a | d | abcda |
| b | c | abcda |
| c | b | abcda |
| c | d | abcda |
| d | c | abcda |
| d | a | abcda |
| a | d | abcda |
@train @platform
Scenario: Foot - railway platforms
Given the node map
| x | a | b | y |
| | d | c | |
And the ways
| nodes | highway | railway |
| xa | primary | |
| by | primary | |
| abcda | (nil) | platform |
When I route I should get
| from | to | route |
| x | y | xa,abcda,by |
| y | x | by,abcda,xa |
| a | b | abcda |
| a | d | abcda |
| b | c | abcda |
| c | b | abcda |
| c | d | abcda |
| d | c | abcda |
| d | a | abcda |
| a | d | abcda |
features/foot/barrier.feature
+39
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
@routing @foot @barrier
Feature: Barriers
Background:
Given the profile "foot"
Scenario: Foot - Barriers
Then routability should be
| node/barrier | bothw |
| | x |
| bollard | x |
| gate | x |
| cycle_barrier | x |
| cattle_grid | x |
| border_control | x |
| toll_booth | x |
| sally_port | x |
| entrance | x |
| wall | |
| fence | |
| some_tag | |
Scenario: Foot - Access tag trumphs barriers
Then routability should be
| node/barrier | node/access | bothw |
| bollard | | x |
| bollard | yes | x |
| bollard | permissive | x |
| bollard | designated | x |
| bollard | no | |
| bollard | private | |
| bollard | agricultural | |
| wall | | |
| wall | yes | x |
| wall | permissive | x |
| wall | designated | x |
| gate | no | |
| gate | private | |
| gate | agricultural | |
features/foot/names.feature
+33
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
@routing @foot @names
Feature: Foot - Street names in instructions
Background:
Given the profile "foot"
Scenario: Foot - A named street
Given the node map
| a | b |
| | c |
And the ways
| nodes | name |
| ab | My Way |
| bc | Your Way |
When I route I should get
| from | to | route |
| a | c | My Way,Your Way |
@unnamed
Scenario: Foot - Use way type to describe unnamed ways
Given the node map
| a | b | c | d |
And the ways
| nodes | highway | name |
| ab | footway | |
| bcd | track | |
When I route I should get
| from | to | route |
| a | d | {highway:footway},{highway:track} |
features/foot/ref.feature
+41
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
@routing @foot @ref @name
Feature: Foot - Way ref
Background:
Given the profile "foot"
Scenario: Foot - Way with both name and ref
Given the node map
| a | b |
And the ways
| nodes | name | ref |
| ab | Utopia Drive | E7 |
When I route I should get
| from | to | route |
| a | b | Utopia Drive / E7 |
Scenario: Foot - Way with only ref
Given the node map
| a | b |
And the ways
| nodes | name | ref |
| ab | | E7 |
When I route I should get
| from | to | route |
| a | b | E7 |
Scenario: Foot - Way with only name
Given the node map
| a | b |
And the ways
| nodes | name |
| ab | Utopia Drive |
When I route I should get
| from | to | route |
| a | b | Utopia Drive |
features/foot/roundabout.feature
+34
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
@routing @foot @roundabout @instruction
Feature: Roundabout Instructions
Background:
Given the profile "foot"
@todo
Scenario: Foot - Roundabout instructions
You can walk in both directions on a roundabout, bu the normal roundabout instructions don't
make sense when you're going the opposite way around the roundabout.
Given the node map
| | | v | | |
| | | d | | |
| s | a | | c | u |
| | | b | | |
| | | t | | |
And the ways
| nodes | junction |
| sa | |
| tb | |
| uc | |
| vd | |
| abcda | roundabout |
When I route I should get
| from | to | route | turns |
| s | t | sa,tb | head,enter_roundabout-1,destination |
| s | u | sa,uc | head,enter_roundabout-2,destination |
| s | v | sa,vd | head,enter_roundabout-3,destination |
| u | v | uc,vd | head,enter_roundabout-1,destination |
| u | s | uc,sa | head,enter_roundabout-2,destination |
| u | t | uc,tb | head,enter_roundabout-3,destination |
features/foot/surface.feature
+15
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
@routing @foot @surface
Feature: Foot - Surfaces
Background:
Given the profile "foot"
Scenario: Foot - Slow surfaces
Then routability should be
| highway | surface | bothw |
| footway | | 145s ~10% |
| footway | fine_gravel | 193s ~10% |
| footway | gravel | 193s ~10% |
| footway | pebbelstone | 193s ~10% |
| footway | mud | 289s ~10% |
| footway | sand | 289s ~10% |