poutnikl / trekking-poutnik Goto Github PK

Suggested by @LeopoldKellers
tandem related modification of template , along with the final profile
in https://github.com/LeopoldKellers/Brouter-profiles

See also BRouter Google group tandem profile topic

Addressing conditional highway=crossing bicycle=no|dismount penalty using the approach from abrensch/brouter#265

In testing in alfa code

Hi,
while playing around with the updated profiles, I noticed an oddity. This may or may not be a bug, but I'd like to understand what is going on.

Example
I used your current nightly here, but it is the same with the other profiles.

So far I thought that when entering a way/node without bikeaccess, then the last line should represent the action of getting off the bike by adding the value 100 (which I thus called dismountpenalty).

assign initialcost =
        add ( if highway=traffic_signals then 120 
              else if highway=stop  then 60 
              else if and highway=crossing bicycle=no then 60 
              else if and highway=crossing crossing=no then 300 # workaround affecting road routing
              else if ( ford=yes ) then ford_initialcost_node
              else initial_cost_node )
            if bikeaccess then 0  else ( if footaccess then 100 else 1000000 )

However, in the short piece of route posted above, this 100 does not show up in the computed cost. The middle piece is explicitly tagged bicycle=no, so bikeaccess should be set to false by means of

assign bikeaccess =
       if nodeaccessgranted=yes then true
       else if bicycle= then
       (
         if vehicle= then defaultaccess
         else not vehicle=private|no
       )
       else not bicycle=private|no|dismount

(unless nodeaccessgranted=yes, but that shouldn't be the case, since cycle route networks are absent)

The map data is simple enough in this case, so I believe that I can rule out incorrect tagging despite my (still) lacking proficiency in that area of OSM.
What is going on here, is it intended behaviour and if so, why? Changing the value from 100 to sth. else has no effect at all on the computed cost. Shouldn't it?

Another Example

Hi,

I think the penalty for pushing bike in a oneway in opposite direction might not be high enough. I came up with this situation where I'm going from the point on the left to the point on the right:

The Trekking-dry profile makes me take the one way in opposite direction and then a major street while there is an alternative way on the south which is about as long but without opposite oneway and calmer streets.

Increasing https://github.com/poutnikl/Trekking-Poutnik/blob/master/Trekking-Poutnik.brf#L249 a bit up to 6.0 seems to be perfectly fine to fix this.

What do you think?
Thanks!

EDIT: The route can be seen at https://brouter.phyks.me/#map=18/48.81836/2.31871/OpenStreetMap&lonlats=2.316879,48.817792|2.31918,48.818427&profile=Trekking-dry (although my instance might be quite slow to compute).