Curvy and extra curvy routes with BRouter (offline)

[devemux86]

Predefined combinations of BRouter avoidances and preferences for routes or sections:

• Fastest route

• Fast and curvy route
  (avoid motorways and cities)

• Curvy route
  (avoid motorways, primary, residential and cities)

• Extra curvy route
  (strong avoid motorways, primary, residential and cities)

The route options of all profiles can be freely customized (enable "Extended settings").

[Cer-o]

¿Donde puedo encontrar esas opciones?

[devemux86]

@Cer-o

They have not been implemented yet. We discuss how we can design them.

Aún no se han puesto en marcha. Debatimos cómo podemos diseñarlos.

[Cer-o]

Ah ok, perfecto. Estaré atento.
Por cierto, aprovecho para felicitarte por el gran trabajo que estás (o estáis) haciendo. Un abrazo.

[devemux86]

@Cer-o ¡Muchas gracias! 🙂

[Leeb64]

Mountainous! is almost always curvy!

[Ciutnik]

Do you plan to make these predefined combinations customizable? As you can see, in different locations, the routing parameter switches produce very different effects – sometimes unexpected, and perhaps even undesirable.

[Ciutnik]

Having the "Menu: Normal/Advanced" toggle now, I thought that if "Normal" was selected, it would actually be enough to choose a preset between "Fastest/Curvy/Extra curvy/..." according to your proposal (so as not to scare novices with the multitude of BRouter switches). Presets like this would be very cool.

But if "Menu: Advanced" is selected, the user should be able to freely set these BRouter switches for each preset separately, according to your preferences, as it is now. I think right?

[devemux86]

@Ciutnik do you mean the advanced menu option in "Settings | Application | Advanced"?
This is only to enable the Open map / theme in the map menu. Not related with the settings.

[devemux86]

We could have presets:

• Fastest
• Curvy
• Extra curvy
• ...
• Manual

"Manual" option allows to play with all BRouter options (like now).
And the other modes could pre-select and lock some of the options?

[Ciutnik]

This is only to enable the Open map / theme in the map menu. Not related with the settings.

True. I was wrong, because some time ago there was a discussion on the forum about the possible introduction of simplified and advanced sets of settings, for novices and power users 🙂

"Manual" option allows to play with all BRouter options (like now).
And the other modes could pre-select and lock some of the options?

Sure, we can try this solution. Although personally, I would rather have an impact on each of these sets. The new options (avoid cities, traffic, noise or prefer rivers, green) are not always good, even for expected curvy routes... I guess I'd be afraid to turn them on in a preset with no option to turn them off.

[devemux86]

The safest avoidances are always the road types.
So we could pre-select different avoid road X for each route type.

The "Avoid cities", at least for big towns, seems to work properly?

[DolomitesTom]

Question: do the new avoidance or prefer types also work when Cruiser is set to Brouter (online)? Because the option are named with Brouter offline.

[devemux86]

@DolomitesTom

Unfortunately BRouter online API does not support the profile options in the route requests.
It would be nice if they implement it.

So all new BRouter profile options are for the BRouter (offline) routing.

---

BUT:

You can use custom profiles and options in BRouter website.
Plan on BRouter website, export in gpx navigation format and load offline in Cruiser.

(profile + instructions are here: #248 (comment))

[DolomitesTom]

ok thanks for information. What about Desktop Cruiser? At the moment the new options are not selectable in 3.0.26. It is not necessary to implement this when the effort is huge. It is just a question, I prefer the further development of the app more.

[devemux86]

BRouter (offline) is an Android app / library. It currently cannot be used on desktop.
I had discussed in the past with @afischerdev if it's worth to use it on the desktop.

On desktop anyway it is always better to use the BRouter website.
I hope they make the GPX nav format official soon as the new offline format for transferring routes.

• GPX TBT navigation track (offline) #250

[Cer-o]

So all new BRouter profile options are for the BRouter (offline) routing.

I understand that with my configuration, any route that I design directly in Cruiser, I will be doing it with BRouter offline and therefore I will be able to activate these different options.

[devemux86]

@Cer-o correctly!

[Leeb64]

Since I can imagine that it's too much work for many people to create such a motorcycle profile, I made a few of them

Avoidance	Toll	Motorway	Primary	Secondary	Tertiary	Urban	Town, Forest	Vmax
Normal=Curvy	100%	80%	20%	0%	40%	80%	1	252
Kurvig=smaller streets ++Curvy	100%	80%	80%	0%	0%	80%	1	140
Faster=bigger streets	80%	60%	0%	0%	80%	80%	1	150
Fast=fast as possible	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0	150

To test and improve!

MOPPED normal.brf.txt
++KURVIG(kl.Str).brf.txt V/max (60->140)
->At V/max 60km/h, towns are not driven through optimally (strange “shortcuts”)#Otherwise not much changes to the route at 140km/h<-
MOPPED faster.brf.txt
MOPPED ++fast.brf.txt

Ps.:funny translation of MOPPED from English into German:-> "schneller gewischt"(wiped faster)

[devemux86]

@bios4

• We try to make the avoid levels easy to understand (instead of displaying BRouter numbers)
  Avoid 100% is absolute avoidance, Avoid 80% motorways"means avoid most motorways

  • Maybe we should drop the % and use levels 1,2,3,4,5 ?

• Towns, forests, etc. do not have levels, they are either on or off

• vmax: @Leeb64 can answer here?

• You can either use Cruiser settings to apply the profile options (image 1)

  • Or open the external profile in BRouter Advanced settings (image 2)

[bios4]

"80% motorways" means avoid most motorways

OK, so my assumption was correct then.

I just wondered where the % values from the table are coming from because these numbers are not visible anywhere in the brf files. Or maybe the table is not properly representing how the profiles really are set up?

Maybe we should drop the % and use levels 1,2,3,4,5 ?

This would then be similar to the Kurviger settings.
Would maybe make things easier, i.e. for beginners or users who did not use detailed avoidances in the past...

Or open the external profile in BRouter Advanced settings (image 2)

Thanks for letting me know - that's what I missed up to now!

[Leeb64]

The story with V/max is probably only understood(?) by the BRouter developer! I think...
The higher the speed is set, the more time-saving the calculation is.
Depending on what other avoidances are set, you can fine-tune it a bit.

[devemux86]

vmax and totalweight can affect the road network.
e.g. smaller vmax avoids high speed roads.

Depending on what other avoidances are set, you can fine-tune it a bit.

👍

[MotoUKRider]

The Normal+Kurvig profiles from @Leeb64 are very good. There is a bit more of a "longer trip around the back roads" on the Kurvig profile but that's what you'd expect. The Normal profile was more direct, but still deviated a little from my values (at the bottom of this thread). With my values, there is more consistency with B-roads (secondary) and less switching between road types.

I think that that any of these would form the basis of "prebuilt" Routing Profiles 😄
I would say you certainly want the Kurvig values for the extreme end of routing, and perhaps something between Normal+my values for a more efficient yet fun ride.

What we need to remember is that curvy/twisty routes don't necessarily mean a good road - there are some very good, long, 60mph B-roads near me that you can ride up/down all day long. Equally, there are some really nasty Tertiary (single-track) lanes that, on-paper, fit the routing profile but are either tractor-magnets, offer poor visibility or have a bad surface. There's only so much a bit of code can know 🤔

[DolomitesTom]

Maybe we should drop the % and use levels 1,2,3,4,5 ?

No please not, I find the percentage much better

[GuG1050]

If "BRouter (offline) curvy, extra curvy routes #254" would be realized, in combination with Smart Route Calculation ... a dream.

Trying to create something similar like the Kurviger routing profiles I am lost in the moment because of the many setting options and not knowing how to set them to get the desired result.

[devemux86]

@GuG1050 there some hints by @Leeb64, please see above:

• Curvy and extra curvy routes with BRouter (offline) #254 (comment)

[MotoUKRider]

Here are my settings for my MotoCurvy Profile - YMMV, as they say 😆

(assume all other settings are 0%/off)
Toll roads: 80%
Motorways: 100%
Primary: 20%
Secondary: 20%
Residential: 60%
Avoid unpaved roads
Ignore closed roads
Speed factor 103 (64mph)

These settings are for others to try on roads they know, to find a working set of values for Curvy/Ultra-Curvy routing profiles. My test route is around 100mi and near motorway/dual-carriageways so this particular profile works to keep me on the fun roads.

[devemux86]

@MotoUKRider

Have you also checked the settings by @Leeb64 above?

• Curvy and extra curvy routes with BRouter (offline) #254 (comment)

[MotoUKRider]

@devemux86 I've seen them, but need to put the values into Cruiser and have a try later.

[Leeb64]

I created two "country road" profiles using the BRouter Web Client.
With the help of the web client you can (if you have a lot of time...) change a few other things and set them more precisely than in the brouter...
The main issue:
Through town: fast.
Small roads across the country(slow).
The Profiles works most of the time.
Unfortunately, the OSM maps are very incomplete (speeds, road surfaces, road categories(inside/outside villages), especially for these small streets.
That's why strange results sometimes come out.Better to control the whole thing.
Set a waypoint ca. every 100km(50km-150km).

Faster(a bit curvy):
Landstrasse flott .brf.txt
More small streets(more curvy):
NEBENSTRASSEN .brf.txt

Settings for a reasonably functioning KURVIGER profile using the Cruiser settings:
Avoid tolls 80%,
Highway Avoid 80% (only used if a waypoint is there),
Main roads 40%,
secondary streets 0%,
Teritary roads 60% (min 40%), residential roads 80%, avoid cities, prefer forests + green regions, speed 100-1000.
When using Avoid Cities and Prefer Forests + Green Regions, the speed must be increased by at least a factor of 2 (up to 1000). Illogical things happen...

[devemux86]

@Leeb64 do you still maintain BRouter profiles for fastest, curvy, extra curvy, like above?

• Curvy and extra curvy routes with BRouter (offline) #254 (comment)

If so, can you post them including the new "unclassified" avoidance?

---

By the way I see that avoid towns + prefer forests cannot work together. Forests often produce strange results.
BRouter developers mentioned that more improvements are needed in these new options.

Better remain with just the avoid towns setting.

[Leeb64]

I have something here to try out.
I took Consier Town and Conder Forest together, but I changed this:

CURVY:
NEBENSTR. 401 .brf.txt
Works well(I think),you should set a waypoint every 50-150km(depending on available roads).
It's a tightrope walk- on the one hand as many small streets as possible but on the other hand quickly through or around towns.

QUICK is easy:
Simply do not adjust anything on the original profile

Slightly CURVY (quick country road):
Leicht Kurvig flott .brf.txt

[devemux86]

Predefined profiles (+ custom) for routes or sections will be available in next Cruiser.

Please see the 1st post for details and images:

• Curvy and extra curvy routes with BRouter (offline) #254 (comment)

We can adjust the predefined profile parameters for each type.
Important to test with routes and keep things simple and calculation quick.

(as everything is done offline on your device)

[devemux86]

It seems the calculation is much slower when we use strong avoidances (80% = factor 1).

Using medium avoidances (60% = factor 10), we still get similar results (depending the case),
but the calculation time is significantly improved.

[Leeb64]

The calculation time is not that important.
Better 1 minute longer calculation time and a good result.

Increase this value to 5 and the calculation time drops to about 2/3.
assign pass1coefficient = 1.3
The result is (nearly) the same.

[devemux86]

Another thing to consider is how we want the 2nd profile (now "Fast and curvy") to work.
For example, Calimoto calls it "Fastest (no highways)", so it works a bit differently.

Which one do you prefer?

[MotoUKRider]

To me, "Fast and curvy" sounds like a restriction on Motorway+Trunk roads (ie: dual-carriageway). Primary roads can be fun, and the single-carriageway "national" limit is 60mph here.

For example, if I applied that routing profile to a trip in Scotland from Gretna to Moffat, I would expect to be kept on the B7076 and off the A74(M). That's a good example of a major road running parallel to a Secondary (B) road. There are several junctions, so profiles/rules can be easily tested with road layouts like this 😄

I think that longer calculation times are a necessary evil 🙈 if you want the algorithm to deep-search road attributes on a very "picky" profile! When it comes to "twisty", I am not sure if/how BRouter can assess the number of segments that make up a road and calculation the (min)turn angle but that sounds like a lot of number-crunching.

I'll be happy to try the new profiles on a few roads that offer interesting/multiple types and see how they plot. So long as the source data is accurate and that road types don't vary too much in different regions, we should get something that works 9 times out of 10.

[devemux86]

Currently the highway=trunk is handled together in the primary category.

We could we make it a separate category (like we will do with "unclassified")?
So the avoidances can be customized in more detail.

[devemux86]

The profile with separate trunk option is here.

[devemux86]

@MotoUKRider what vmax do you use in your routes?
Note it is set in km/h.

We can include it in the curvy profiles.

[devemux86]

Testing the vmax seems to affect the routing at 59 km/h (36.7 mph).

[MotoUKRider]

@devemux86 I use 73(mph) or thereabouts (over 70, at least). I replicated the re-routing by lowing it to ~36 but the scaling of the slide-bar doesn't allow for finite adjustments(!) I need to test it on a road with a more consistent speed-limit rather than the few I know that have 30/40mph stretches as they go through a village. I am not sure how small portions of road with a lower limit affect the overall "decision" of the routing.

[devemux86]

@MotoUKRider I do not think the vmax works exactly with the max speeds.
Need to study the BRouter code to see the details.

cc @afischerdev

But I see that the routing changes a lot when it is dropped below 60 km / h.

The vmax setting will be reverted to its previous speed with unit slider with reasonable max (e.g. 250 or 300 km / h).
If a different / larger setting is needed, then it should be an issue in the profile rules and we better improve the profile.

[Leeb64]

You have to be careful about avoiding “trunks”!
Such “trunks” lead around many towns.
If you make the avoidance too high, you will veer straight through the city.
That's the problem! As quickly as possible through or around cities, but outside of town it's basically the opposite.
You should be able to differentiate between urban areas and rural areas.

[devemux86]

...and on the other hand, if the ability to edit all profiles was included in the advanced settings (which beginners and non-advanced users will never look at), there would be no need for the "Custom" profile :-)

Very good point! 👍

[bios4]

If the ability to edit all profiles was included in the advanced settings [...] there would be no need for the "Custom" profile :-)

I am ambivalent about editing (== overwriting!) existing predefined profiles...

My idea would be to support the mentioned predefined (unchangeable) profiles and to also deliver (at least) one "custom" profile that can be customized as desired. And maybe having the possibility to copy this custom profile as often as required to fine-tune them with all details as one sees fit...

[devemux86]

Also note that this can easily become too complicated to maintain,
like if all profiles can be customized or have over 1 custom profiles.

[bios4]

That's why I'm suggesting to allow only the custom profile to be edited.
But make this copy-able, so that a user could create separate, fine-tuned profiles for all of his needs.

Win-win... 😉

[Ciutnik]

We have a similar solution in the case of application profiles.

[devemux86]

I updated the 1st post with new details and images.

We can have many predefined route profiles and customize all profile options (if enable the "Extended settings").
(basic settings: image 2, extended settings: image 3)

So all users are covered: new users with predefined settings and experienced users with adjustable settings in all profiles.
We could also add a "Reset" function in the custom options of route profiles, so can restore them with the default options.

[Ciutnik]

So all users are covered: new users with predefined settings and experienced users

Thank you on behalf of fans of configuring everything 😀👍

[devemux86]

@Leeb64

I think for the forest to work properly we need to change line 282 to:
switch estimated_forest_class= 999

(as this is no_forest_penalty_limit, that is a reverse rule)

---

I updated the driving-cruiser profile:

• How to use BRouter website #272

[bios4]

I updated the driving-cruiser profile

This profile does NOT properly consider the "avoid motorways" option @devemux86...

I switched to it from the internal profile (v3.0.42) and get routed via motorways (even when setting the avoidance to 100%, from previously 80%).

Any ideas?

[devemux86]

@bios4 routing options currently work with the internal profiles.

But I think we can make them work with external profiles too (if they contain them) in next version.

[bios4]

OK I see, thanks for the clarification!

But I think we can make them work with external profiles too (if they contain them) in next version.

This would be a nice addition...

[devemux86]

Curvy, extra curvy, custom routes with BRouter (offline) are available for testing in:

• Cruiser 4.0.0 (Beta) #482

[mkrezdo]

Not sure if it's possible to seach only in this topic so I hope my question was not there already.

But is there a possibility to plan rounts with exactly the same algorithm that is used in the new beta now but on a desktop PC in a browser?
I'd really like to get some feeling how it works also compared with other planing tools. To get a better feeling what happens if I plan with this during a tour instead of an online tool.

[devemux86]

@mkrezdo

I also sent the BRouter brf file from my mobile phone to the pc

You do not have to sent anything. Cruiser's driving profile is available in the mentioned topic (just download it):

• How to use BRouter website #272

But I'm also not sure if I use the right profiles at the desktop (see second pic)

The alternatives do not mean different profiles, they are alternatives of the same profile.

To change routing options, see the options in Cruiser settings and set them in the website.
The factors per level are mentioned here:

• How to use BRouter website #272 (comment)

[devemux86]

@mkrezdo

If you find the website complicated, better do the route planning with Cruiser, it offers the best experience. 🙂

[Ciutnik]

I wonder if using an Android emulator on PC would be better than the PC java version of Cruiser? I don't have any experience with such emulators, but I know there are several of them. I guess you can log in to your own Google account and use it like native Android (?)

Or maybe someone has such experience? Is this even likely to work?

[devemux86]

I guess you can log in to your own Google account and use it like native Android (?)

Exactly, this how Android development is also done. But it is not so simple.

[Ciutnik]

Well, so I installed the Android emulator NoxPlayer in Windows 10. I am pleasantly surprised! The pre-installed Google Play allowed me to install Cruiser. It works almost everything! Offline maps, routing, search, navigation simulation... The only thing I don't have access to is TTS. The one from Google is not available, so you may have to mess with another one 🙂
I just noticed that the settings finder doesn't work with the PC keyboard either, maybe with the Android virtual keyboard it should work.

It's more of a curiosity than a serious tool, but you can play with it 😉

[devemux86]

We could change the avoid factors to make their levels more different?
Now they are: 45, 22, 10, 1, 0.

10, 1, 0 can remain as they seem to work nicely.
But there is little difference in 45, 22, 10 (depending the route).

So we could use 60 (as 59 seems a changing point) for level 1.
And level 2 (between 60 and 10)?

[devemux86]

Calimoto is the most popular in the category with millions of users
and provides a simple profile selection and few options, very good. 👍

Best in class is often simplicity so users aren't overwhelmed with options.
In any case, if there is feedback from your friends, please create a new topic to discuss and make improvements.

[Leeb64]

The problem with the avoidance settings is primarily the driving through towns.
You have to be very careful not to take annoying detours or shortcuts off the main road.
The avoidance criterion: Avoid_urban_Factor should ideally be between 1 and 5, depending on the selected speed.
1 is often too strong - streets on which small towns are located are avoided. Bad for curvy routes. 2, better 3 or 4 still works well. The higher the selected speed, the lower the value.The selectable values ​​0,1,10,22,45 are suboptimal.
For this setting you would need the values ​​1,2,3,4,5
everything else makes little sense.
City>
Example: 400km/h, avoid urban 4 OK!

Example: 400kmh,avoid urban 6 not OK!(sidestreets)

Overland>
Example: 400kmh,avoid urban 4 OK!

Example: 400kmh,avoid urban 2 not OK!(huge detour)

[devemux86]

The issue starts with the 400 km/h, this is not a normal speed value.
The speed should be reasonable (e.g. Valhalla has a max 250 km/h).

If need to use such large speed, it means that the profile needs improvements.

[Leeb64]

The real problem lies more or less with the BRouter.
Otherwise you wouldn't have to do pull-ups like that.

[MotoUKRider]

Putting on my newbie user hat for a second, those speed values have no basis in reality. Honestly, why can't it translate to something more meaningful (and do the unit conversions behind-the-scenes)? If it could be used as an average/target speed then it could work within the road-type rules to plot a decent route.

I would say that, for simplicity, any front-end config needs to be painfully easy to understand and have a meaningful scale, like %, levels or realistic speed values. This is where Calimoto shines: It's done the sums for you and presents the options in "simple terms for idiots" 😆

[umpfmpf]

Why does Cruiser calculate a route with 10-12 hours of travel time, depending on the profile chosen, and with an average speed of real 55kmh only 5-6 hours?

[devemux86]

@umpfmpf what do you mean with "profile chosen"?
Curvy / Extra curvy profile or app profile (motorcycle, bike), etc?

Have you changed the speed option in BRouter settings?
(it can change the calculated duration)

Better select "Average speed" in "Settings | Routing | Advanced | Route duration" for the best results.
(this is the default setting)

[umpfmpf]

I mean the Curvy / Extra curvy profile.
Which speed option ? I set the average speed to 57 kmh. (So it still works)
With calculated route there are very large deviations. And very unrealistic ones.

[Leeb64]

I just did a test:
A route with 400km/h -> distance 110km, 4h40min.
same start and end point 100km/h->distance 108km, 5h21min.
4 times the speed, 20% less time...

Without PseudoTags (consider Town,Forest) at 400km/h 2h36,at100km/h 2h37.(distance 101km)

[devemux86]

@Leeb64 I checked the pseudo tags, their current rules also use the "speed" as a prefer / avoid factor.
That's why it can also influence the route duration calculated by the router.

---

Cruiser now uses its own algorithms to calculate the route duration with BRouter (offline),
using the average speed freely selected by users in Cruiser settings.

So the duration of the journey can be personalized to each user according to their travel style.

[Ciutnik]

Cruiser now uses its own algorithms to calculate the route duration

Maybe there should be a separate speed setting for each section profile? We expect a completely different average speed on the "most fastest" section and on the "most curved".

[devemux86]

@Ciutnik this is usually the average speed we travel the whole journey, like it is reported in the average speed panel.

Average speed per section will increase the complexity, so we need to think carefully about it.

Users already do not understand how to use the BRouter's vmax option, usually no need to change it.

[Ciutnik]

Of course, this was just my loose thought about increasing the precision of calculations, but actually at the expense of increasing complexity - and we don't want that 🙂

[EssBee59]

Hello devemux! Yes, I worked last year on pseudo-tags for the Brouter, so if you have a clear question, I will try to help. In the current state of this discussion, I can only give some general information’s. A further problem is, I am not motor biker, so it is not easy to understand/ follow your requests. Some ideas (perhaps already implemented): * Did you consider the “turncost” in your profile (as e. make use of this cost depending on the way used) * Currently for your use I think only the Pseudo-tags “traffic” and “town” can help * You can of course create new pseudo-tags for your own usage: For this you need a clear concept and remember that the pseudo-tags are calculated based on information’s contained in OSM. * If the interface Cruiser-app – Brouter-app becomes very complex (number of options very high), remember that Brouter supports many parameters in the API: You can specify the name of the profile to be used (here the profiles are stored previously in Brouter-app), but you can also transfer the profile it self by each call (profiles are managed in the calling app). Regards EsBee Von: Emux ***@***.***> Gesendet: Samstag, 27. April 2024 10:29 An: devemux86/cruiser ***@***.***> Cc: EssBee59 ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Betreff: Re: [devemux86/cruiser] Curvy, extra curvy, custom routes with BRouter (offline) (Discussion #254) @Leeb64 <https://github.com/Leeb64> about the pseudo tags and route duration, please make a report in BRouter repository <https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/> . I think @EssBee59 <https://github.com/EssBee59> works on them. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#254 (comment)> , or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AL75PSEQORHEME6P2SVJOS3Y7NOVJAVCNFSM6AAAAAA2TYL3BKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43SRDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHM4TENBTHE4TA> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned. <https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AL75PSBGXVQLBFDUZ7NWWEDY7NOVJA5CNFSM6AAAAAA2TYL3BKWGG33NNVSW45C7OR4XAZNRIRUXGY3VONZWS33OINXW23LFNZ2KUY3PNVWWK3TUL5UWJTQARUGVM.gif> Message ID: ***@***.*** ***@***.***> >

[devemux86]

@EssBee59 many thanks for your help! 👍

I will check your suggestions. So far we have indeed seen the best results with the "town" pseudo-tags.

There is a request from the users to include in BRouter data lower population numbers (now it is 50K ?),
but I think this is already considered by the BRouter developers.

Decrease the lower population threshold to 1000:

• Improve town, forest and river tags abrensch/brouter#614

[devemux86]

Curvy and extra curvy routes with BRouter (offline) and different route profiles for sections are available in Cruiser 4.0.0.