Abstract
Computing multiple alternative routes from a source <tex>$s$</tex> to a target <tex>$t$</tex> has received significant research attention. However, it is unclear which of the existing approaches generates alternative routes of better quality because the quality of these alternatives is mostly subjective. Motivated by this, in this paper, we present a user study conducted on the road networks of Melbourne, Dhaka and Copenhagen comparing four of the most popular existing approaches including Google Maps. We report the average ratings received by the four approaches, and our statistical analysis shows that there is no credible evidence that the four approaches receive different ratings on average. We also discuss the limitations of this user study and recommend the readers interpret these results with caution.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
