Skip to content
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

Options: typo, explanations #747

Open
gnbl opened this issue Jun 28, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

Options: typo, explanations #747

gnbl opened this issue Jun 28, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@gnbl
Copy link

gnbl commented Jun 28, 2023

consider_river
Enable to favor a route along rivers or sees

Maybe "Favo[u]r routes along rivers or lakes" instead? Or "Prefer"? But what about the sea? Not sure whether "water bodies" would be the proper word. Maybe ask ChatGPT to rephrase ;-)

More importantly, please elaborate the option's explanations, e.g. "Cost for going downhill" does really not add anything to "downhillcost".
My underlying question would be why "dowhill" has an associated cost whereas "uphill" doesn't.

@quaelnix
Copy link
Contributor

This must be fixed in the respective profile itself, not in BRouter-Web.

@waldyrious
Copy link

The first part of this issue should be fixed in abrensch/brouter#660.

@quaelnix
Copy link
Contributor

More importantly, please elaborate the option's explanations, e.g. "Cost for going downhill" does really not add anything to "downhillcost".

The logic behind this is described in the "The elevation buffer (From Poutnik's glossary )" part of the profile developers guide., which probably cannot be summarized in one sentence. But I agree that "Cost for going downhill" is far from optimal.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants