bicycle routing: Don't prefer cycleways too much over tracks/path/footways #314
Conversation
…tways Previously we would make huge detours to prefer cycleways. E.g. versus a footway with bicycle=yes we would take more than 3 time as long ways (16/8)*(1.5/0.9) > 3 to use a cycleway. We would also take long detours (more than twice as long ways) to prefer a track/path over a footway with bicycle=yes. Often footway/bicycle=yes are synonyms for highway=path, and the latter is not faster or better at all. This led to weird bicycle routing where I was taking long detours to stay on a "path" rather than a "footway". Take up Victors suggestion of bumbing the speed of a footway from 8 to 12, which is still realistic and tone down the priority of 1.5 for cycleways/track/path to 1.3 which was too high. This is what this patch does. Now we have: Highway= Speed= Priority= Detours-vs-footway= footway 12 1 -- track/path 12 1.3 30% cycleway 16 1.3 73% I believe this still prefers tracks/path and cycleway enough and the weird routing went away. (the data has changed now or I would give the example location. But I tested a few bike routes involving various ways and the suggestions were sensible. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Spaeth <Sebastian@SSpaeth.de>
| <road tag="highway" value="tertiary" speed="16" priority="1" dynamicPriority="1"/> | ||
| <road tag="highway" value="tertiary_link" speed="16" priority="1" dynamicPriority="1"/> | ||
| <road tag="highway" value="road" speed="16" priority="1" dynamicPriority="1"/> | ||
| <road tag="highway" value="residential" speed="16" priority="1.1" dynamicPriority="1.1"/> | ||
| <road tag="highway" value="cycleway" speed="16" priority="1.5" dynamicPriority="1"/> | ||
|
|
||
| <road tag="highway" value="cycleway" speed="16" priority="1.3" dynamicPriority="1.3"/> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
toned down cycleway, which Victor said was too high compared to other tracks/paths. And it was really routing me on weird ways to keep me on a cycleway before.
|
Last comment. Here is the output of a route with the new values and the old values for comparison: This is how the old osmand routed me: On the right is a YOURS and Cloudmade route, on the left is a route with this patch: You can see that the three routes differ. YOURS and Cloudmade basically give me a fast, but not beautiful route, which is essentially a car route. The old osmand took a way through quieter residential areas which is indeed nicer to bike, and the new values lead me on even more cycleways. This is the route that I would be taking in real life too. But that is just for information. Perhaps we need a nice versus fast profile for bicycles? Happy for any feedback :-) |
Previously we would make huge detours to prefer cycleways. E.g. versus a
footway with bicycle=yes we would take more than 3 time as long ways
(16/8)*(1.5/0.9) > 3 to use a cycleway. We would also take long detours
(more than twice as long ways) to prefer a track/path over a footway with
bicycle=yes. Often footway/bicycle=yes are synonyms for highway=path,
and the latter is not faster or better at all. This led to weird bicycle
routing where I was taking long detours to stay on a "path" rather than
a "footway".
Take up Victors suggestion of bumbing the speed of a footway
from 8 to 12, which is still realistic and tone down the priority of 1.5
for cycleways/track/path to 1.3 which was too high.
This is what this patch does. Now we have:
Highway= Speed= Priority= Detours-vs-footway=
footway 12 1 --
track/path 12 1.3 30%
cycleway 16 1.3 73%
I believe this still prefers tracks/path and cycleway enough and the
weird routing went away. (the data has changed now or I would give
the example location. But I tested a few bike routes involving various
ways and the suggestions were sensible.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Spaeth Sebastian@SSpaeth.de