Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

New trekking profile suggests weird detour when avoid_unsafe is enabled #773

Open
sjakobi opened this issue Sep 3, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

Comments

@sjakobi
Copy link

sjakobi commented Sep 3, 2023

Example: https://brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=14/51.2280/12.0997/osm-mapnik-german_style,Waymarked_Trails-Cycling&lonlats=12.10475,51.217151;12.117341,51.240527

avoid_unsafe=false:

image

avoid_unsafe=true:

image

The problem IMHO is that the profile avoids this highway=unclassified, which has maxspeed=30 and hgv=agricultural. I don't think that road needs to be penalized so badly.

@sjakobi
Copy link
Author

sjakobi commented Sep 3, 2023

Note that Poutnik's classic Trekking profile doesn't do this. I wish there was a version of that profile enhanced to support the new environment tags.

The lack of support for smoothness tags is another issue with the new trekking and fastbike-lowtraffic profiles.

@quaelnix
Copy link
Contributor

quaelnix commented Sep 4, 2023

The penalty is so high because there is neither a cycle route nor a bicycle tag on this way.

Maybe use consider_traffic instead of avoid_unsafe in such cases?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants