They've now pretty much disabled walking routes, the *******s. Even for a
route like (St Faiths Road (x) Thurlow Park Road) to (Lanercost Close (x)
Christchurch Road) it says you should do 2 minutes walk, 1 minute on a bus
(a single stop, I believe) and then 2 minutes walk at the end, giving a
"maximum journey time of 4 minutes". Unless the P13 runs approximately every
30 seconds, I can't see how the maximum journey time would be 4 minutes.
Even if you set the date to Christmas Day, it still suggests using a
(non-existent) bus.

Better still, I know the walk from my house to the nearest train station
takes 12-15 minutes, but the JP suggests a 20 minute walk to a nondescript
point on a hail and ride route which is further than the station, and then
getting the bus back to the train station.

And if you tell it to use a route without buses, it says "Journey Planner
cannot find any routes using these settings". *******s. It could last week.

Also, the walking routes have had all streets removed from the maps. Perhaps
they were getting fed up with me pointing out errors in the walking routes
generated.

Then again, maybe they didn't want people to realise that the walking route
between two arbitrary points in London usually takes only about 50% longer
than the quickest public transport route. But whatever the reason, there is
no way that this publicly funded body is attempting to serve the public when
they pull stunts like this. Like the police, they're not even pretending any
more.

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 17:46:27 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:


They've now pretty much disabled walking routes, the *******s.

Really? I just put in a start point of Paddington and an end point of
my office (Great Portland Street) and it gave me, as the fifth option,
"Walk" (37 min, though I invariably cover it in less than 30).

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 17:46:27 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:


They've now pretty much disabled walking routes, the *******s. Even for a
route like (St Faiths Road (x) Thurlow Park Road) to (Lanercost Close (x)
Christchurch Road) it says you should do 2 minutes walk, 1 minute on a bus
(a single stop, I believe) and then 2 minutes walk at the end, giving a
"maximum journey time of 4 minutes". Unless the P13 runs approximately every
30 seconds, I can't see how the maximum journey time would be 4 minutes.
Even if you set the date to Christmas Day, it still suggests using a
(non-existent) bus.

Better still, I know the walk from my house to the nearest train station
takes 12-15 minutes, but the JP suggests a 20 minute walk to a nondescript
point on a hail and ride route which is further than the station, and then
getting the bus back to the train station.

And if you tell it to use a route without buses, it says "Journey Planner
cannot find any routes using these settings". *******s. It could last week.

Also, the walking routes have had all streets removed from the maps. Perhaps
they were getting fed up with me pointing out errors in the walking routes
generated.

Then again, maybe they didn't want people to realise that the walking route
between two arbitrary points in London usually takes only about 50% longer
than the quickest public transport route. But whatever the reason, there is
no way that this publicly funded body is attempting to serve the public when
they pull stunts like this. Like the police, they're not even pretending any
more.

Surely anyone with half a brain would consult something like
streetmap.co.uk if they wanted a walking route between points they
know to be less than 20 minutes apart.

You are being unnecessarily facetious.

James Farrar wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 17:46:27 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:


They've now pretty much disabled walking routes, the *******s.

Really? I just put in a start point of Paddington and an end point
of my office (Great Portland Street) and it gave me, as the fifth
option, "Walk" (37 min, though I invariably cover it in less than
30).

In that case, set your walking speed under "More options" to Fast
(assuming you hadn't done that already).
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 21:07:12 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

James Farrar wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 17:46:27 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:


They've now pretty much disabled walking routes, the *******s.

Really? I just put in a start point of Paddington and an end point
of my office (Great Portland Street) and it gave me, as the fifth
option, "Walk" (37 min, though I invariably cover it in less than
30).

In that case, set your walking speed under "More options" to Fast
(assuming you hadn't done that already).

That *was* on Normal, but even Fast is too slow. For an unfamiliar
route, I look at the given distance on the PDF and multiply by 5/8.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

John Rowland wrote:
They've now pretty much disabled walking routes, the *******s. Even
for a route like (St Faiths Road (x) Thurlow Park Road) to
(Lanercost Close (x) Christchurch Road) it says you should do 2
minutes walk, 1 minute on a bus (a single stop, I believe) and then
2 minutes walk at the end, giving a "maximum journey time of 4
minutes". Unless the P13 runs approximately every 30 seconds, I
can't see how the maximum journey time would be 4 minutes.

No, it's not a function of the bus frequency. It says that if you
depart at the stated time (and if the bus runs to time), then the
maximum journey time will be 4 minutes. From the figures you quote,
that ought to be 5. The fundamental problem with the JP is that it
can't suggest the best route statistically for a journey that starts
between, say, 10:00 and 10:15. If the route is walk + bus + walk, it
should be able to quote a maximum time based on just missing a bus at
the end of the initial walk.

Anyway, after various suggestions involving a bus, which would be useful
if you couldn't or didn't want to walk very far, it does, as usual,
offer a walking route, so I'm not sure what your gripe is.

Even if you set the date to Christmas Day, it still suggests using a
(non-existent) bus.

It won't offer me any dates beyond November 2006.

Better still, I know the walk from my house to the nearest train
station takes 12-15 minutes, but the JP suggests a 20 minute walk
to a nondescript point on a hail and ride route which is further
than the station, and then getting the bus back to the train
station.

The default walking limit is 20 minutes at average speed. If it deems
the station is further than this, it may not offer an all-walking route.
If you set the walking speed to Fast, you might get a different result.
There's also a box labelled "I'd rather walk if it makes my journey
quicker", which is unchecked by default, but it doesn't seem to make
much difference in my experience.

And if you tell it to use a route without buses, it says "Journey
Planner cannot find any routes using these settings". *******s. It
could last week.

I've just tried that for the St Faiths Road to Lanercost Close journey.
I unchecked Bus, and it offered me walk+rail+walk routes, or the
7-minute (average speed) walk. When I unchecked all the public
transport options, I just got the 7-minute walk.

Also, the walking routes have had all streets removed from the
maps. Perhaps they were getting fed up with me pointing out errors
in the walking routes generated.

Here again, the "Start map" or "End map" button produced the full street
map as usual.

Perhaps there was something amiss with the system when you tried it.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Richard J. wrote:

John Rowland wrote:

Better still, I know the walk from my house to the nearest train
station takes 12-15 minutes, but the JP suggests a 20 minute walk
to a nondescript point on a hail and ride route which is further
than the station, and then getting the bus back to the train
station.

The default walking limit is 20 minutes at average speed. If it deems the
station is further than this, it may not offer an all-walking route.

But, according to John, it *does* then offer you a bus route *which
involves walking further than to the station*. My guess is that the logic
looks like this:

TO FIND ROUTE FROM A TO B:
LET T = TIME TAKEN FOR CARBON-BASED BIPED UNIT TO WALK FROM A TO B
IF T AS FAR AS FAT/LAZY/CRIPPLED C. B. B. U.S WILL WALK:
RETURN WALK FROM A TO B
ELSE:
LET C = NEAREST BUS STOP OR WHATEVER TO A
RETURN WALK FROM A TO C, TAKE BUS FROM C TO B

Which will merrily emit two-leg routes in which the walk is longer than
the direct option.

This is slightly surprising; i would have thought the algorithm would be
something more general (Dijkstra's algorithm or A* or similar), which
would not make this mistake.

tom

--
Well we know where we're going, but we don't know where we've been

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Peter Frimberley wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 17:46:27 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Then again, maybe they didn't want people to realise that the walking
route between two arbitrary points in London usually takes only about
50% longer than the quickest public transport route. But whatever the
reason, there is no way that this publicly funded body is attempting to
serve the public when they pull stunts like this. Like the police,
they're not even pretending any more.

Surely anyone with half a brain would consult something like
streetmap.co.uk if they wanted a walking route between points they know
to be less than 20 minutes apart.

In which case the quantity of brain in London must be really rather close
must be scarcely higher than 0.5 per capita.

No, i think John's right. After all, walking is PURE FREEDOM, and that's
just not something it's safe for people to have any more. Wouldn't you
agree? Or do you support the terrorists?

tom

--
Well we know where we're going, but we don't know where we've been

James Farrar wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 21:07:12 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

James Farrar wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 17:46:27 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:


They've now pretty much disabled walking routes, the *******s.

Really? I just put in a start point of Paddington and an end point
of my office (Great Portland Street) and it gave me, as the fifth
option, "Walk" (37 min, though I invariably cover it in less than
30).

In that case, set your walking speed under "More options" to Fast
(assuming you hadn't done that already).

That *was* on Normal, but even Fast is too slow. For an unfamiliar
route, I look at the given distance on the PDF and multiply by 5/8.

Not sure what that calculation does for you, apart from converting the
km into miles.

Fast speed in the JP seems to work out at around 3.7 mph (6 km/h).
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 22:15:21 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

James Farrar wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 21:07:12 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

James Farrar wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 17:46:27 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:


They've now pretty much disabled walking routes, the *******s.

Really? I just put in a start point of Paddington and an end point
of my office (Great Portland Street) and it gave me, as the fifth
option, "Walk" (37 min, though I invariably cover it in less than
30).

In that case, set your walking speed under "More options" to Fast
(assuming you hadn't done that already).

That *was* on Normal, but even Fast is too slow. For an unfamiliar
route, I look at the given distance on the PDF and multiply by 5/8.

Not sure what that calculation does for you, apart from converting the
km into miles.

It converts the given distance into a unit which I know how long it'll
take me to walk...

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com