Calculating with Restrictions route parameters

[VPlachy]

I need help. When calculating a route (xRoute.calculateExtendedRoute( .... )), I turned on restrictions route parameters and any of the waypoints lies at the point where because of the restrictions route parameters can not be planned, so the entire calculation will end the message, and nothing can count. The Map & Guide Internet and Desktop is a feature that route plans despite these points, but the application will announce that these points were restrictions route parameters ignored. It is possible to use here? What is needed to set up?
Thank you Vladimír

[Bernd Welter]

Hello Vladimir,

how about using the following ROUTING OPTIONS

RoutingOptions
ALLOW_SEGMENT_VIOLATIONS = true
COST_OF_SEGMENTVIOLATIONS = 0

2016-06-03 18_20_00-96,2059.png (1.83 KiB) Viewed 7708 times

This will ignore the cause for the error and inform you in the response segments based on VIOLATIONS:

Violations of truck attributes are ignored but reported in the response.

Best regards Bernd

[VPlachy]

Hello Brand,
Thank you for your help, everything works correctly. Is there a list of codes and their descriptions, which can be generated?

Vladimir

[Bernd Welter]

Hello Vlad,

I don't have a list but the documentation contains some details:

the UPM:
http://xserver.ptvgroup.com/fileadmin/f ... =driveType

How about this:
http://xserver.ptvgroup.com/fileadmin/f ... .htm#truck

Regards Bernd

[Joost]

Extra remark: what ALLOW_SEGMENT_VIOLATIONS actually does is turn all blocking into avoidance. The avoidance is a set cost value that is added to each blocked segment for our routing engine. You can configure this value with COST_OF_SEGMENTVIOLATIONS. A recommended value for production is 50000 (iirc this is what map and guide internally uses). This value is high enough so that the route will only drive threw a blocked segment if there is no other option. If you use a value of 0 there is no avoidance on the blocking, so our routing engine can choose a route that violates more blocking then technically needed.