You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently picking a routing engine happens using -r. Then several -a/-p variants can be used to match a given profile (as seen in the vehicle.profile value) to a given routing stack.
But it is not currently possible to send different profile requests to different routing engines. This is only a technical limitation: we're already creating a child instance of routing::Wrapper for each profile. The type of that wrapper is currently common (decided by -r) but we could totally have any wrapper type for each profile.
Probably this would mean introducing a syntax similar to -a car:host1 -a bike:host2 for the router, e.g. -r car:osrm -r bike:valhalla. And in order to not break backward compatibility the -r router option should default to use router for all profiles.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently picking a routing engine happens using
-r
. Then several-a
/-p
variants can be used to match a given profile (as seen in thevehicle.profile
value) to a given routing stack.But it is not currently possible to send different profile requests to different routing engines. This is only a technical limitation: we're already creating a child instance of
routing::Wrapper
for each profile. The type of that wrapper is currently common (decided by-r
) but we could totally have any wrapper type for each profile.Probably this would mean introducing a syntax similar to
-a car:host1 -a bike:host2
for the router, e.g.-r car:osrm -r bike:valhalla
. And in order to not break backward compatibility the-r router
option should default to userouter
for all profiles.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: