GraphHopper routes cars through pedestrian roads

[Langlaeufer]

Describe the bug
highway=pedestrian roads are intended for pedestrians only; exceptions for vehicles should be tagged explicitly.

GraphHopper currently routes vehicles through pedestrian roads if motor_vehicle:conditional (e.g., delivery) is defined. I would expect motor_vehicle=no to remain the default for this road type, even when a conditional access tag is present, unless the routing profile explicitly validates that the condition is met.

Example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/124259425
highway = pedestrian
motor_vehicle:conditional = delivery @ (Mo-Fr 06:00-11:00, 19:00-21:00; Sa 06:00-09:30; PH off)
bicycle = yes

To Reproduce
https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=52.374555%2C9.733054&point=52.375861%2C9.737142&profile=car&layer=Omniscale

Expected Behavior
The routing engine should prioritize a detour around the pedestrian area.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=52.374807%2C9.734209%3B52.375789%2C9.737197#map=16/52.37804/9.73678

[Langlaeufer]

same error with this tag combination
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/286362528/history/21

highway=service
vehicle=no
motor_vehicle:conditional = delivery ...
(in this case the tagging should be better vehicle:conditional)

but still GraphHopper ignores vehicle=no

https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=52.376919%2C9.739738&point=52.375442%2C9.742238&profile=car&layer=Omniscale

[pgrigolli]

Hey, I took a look at this issue and would love to work on it. Could you assign it to me?

[Langlaeufer]

I update the Tagging in the area of my first example. (added some vehicle=*)
Now graphopper is routing correctly there.

New example to reproduce the bug.
https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=52.376081%2C9.7352&point=52.375848%2C9.737153&profile=car&layer=Omniscale
https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=52.505309%2C9.461278&point=52.504116%2C9.461184&profile=car&layer=Omniscale

My strong guess:
if no explizit default is given, graphhopper is using =yes as default if a restrictive :conditional (no,delivery,destination..) is tagged
ignoring implicit access of the way (eg. pedestrian) or more generic access-values (see example2 (vehicle vs. motor_vehicle))

[pgrigolli]

Hey @karussell, I submitted a PR that solves this issue. Could you please check if it is ok?

[michaz]

Hi! First of all, I'm not claiming nothing is wrong or dubious here.

But I do claim that we are not, in fact, opening such links for cars in this program here, at its default settings. And that's because we don't react to "delivery" tags, so they don't open pedestrian zones or indeed anything.

I know that's not what you were centrally getting at though.

What does in fact happen in this code is that a link that's tagged as being open for traffic even for parts of the day is used for routing. It's a binary decision. I do think it should be configurable what to do. And probably the default should be different.

That said: What's going on in our public API is a different matter. That does seem to currently take you to those "pedestrian except sometimes for delivery" areas relatively liberally. But still, it does not dash right through. What it tries to do is to just put a route there if you place a marker right at an address on that street -- such as when you are planning a delivery there. (It isn't succeeding perfectly, clearly, and we're working on that.)

[michaz]

@Langlaeufer That one is intriguing: https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=52.505309%2C9.461278&point=52.504116%2C9.461184&profile=car&layer=Omniscale

I can't turn around because I am on an Einbahnstraße. I can't turn right because it's Fahrradstraße, Anlieger Frei. And I can't go straight ahead because it's Fußgängerzone, Lieferverkehr Frei.

Presumably, not having to disintegrate in place is an Anliegen, perhaps valid enough to trump not being Lieferverkehr, so we should turn right.

I'll see what I can do.

[michaz]

Still closing here because this repo is about the open source project proper, which isn't affected by this.

[Langlaeufer]

Still closing here because this repo is about the open source project proper, which isn't affected by this.

What would be the correct repo?