Hi Gerd
Yes, today I tried to put it into RoadNetWork, but then I found out that this routine sees the roads after they were split into smaller parts by StyledConverter. So, a lot more program logic has to be changed, and I think
Yes, most of that code should be moved too. And anyway, shouldn't the short arc code be run after cutting the roads up anyway? It might also be possible to combine the two functions.
that I don't understand enough for that :-( I hope you can solve this, because I am not that happy with the removeShortArcs_v3.patch as well.
I don't understand it either. I suspect that it might be possible to solve the actual problem that removeShortArcs is attempting to solve, at the level of building the NOD file. But the only way to find out would be to find or construct cases that don't route properly as tests and experiment. In the short term we need to decide on something to do. We could disable the failing tests for the moment, go back to the version that didn't iterate multiple times over the roads, or go back to running it over all lines. Running over all lines is a step backwards in my opinion. The second option seems fine to me, as long as there are no error messages about short arcs. Even though the results are different they could well be for the better. The comments about contour lines in that routine make me think that it could be simplified now that we are not running it on contours. Lastly we could disable the failing tests for now, since they are false failures. So it depends on what you think about the original patch that didn't run multiple times over the ways. If you think it is definitely broken then we should @Ignore the failing test, and I will try out ways of re-structuring all that code. I've wanted to do it for a long time since I think that it is a barrier to any routing improvements. ..Steve