search

GIScience / openrouteservice

🌍 The open source route planner api with plenty of features.
https://openrouteservice.org
GNU General Public License v3.0
1.32k stars 379 forks source link

hiking profile still uses a lot of cycleways #909

Open TheGreatRefrigerator opened 3 years ago

TheGreatRefrigerator commented 3 years ago

This is a feedback from a user that generated a hiking trip.

Here's what I did

https://classic-maps.openrouteservice.org/directions?n1=48.455734&n2=10.888309&n3=12&a=49.27978,9.689179,48.152243,11.544326&b=2b&c=0&k1=en-US&k2=km

Here's what I got

Some longer cycleway segments.

Here's what I was expecting

Less Cycleways/ less asphalted surfaces, which is for hiking not preferred.

Here's what I think could be improved

Maybe for the hiking avoid cycleways at all costs instead of avoid if possible? I'm not sure of other implications that will have. Maybe another strategy?

aoles commented 3 years ago

All but one segments marked as way type: cycleway in the provided example are accessible to pedestrians. This is evident from the tagging, which additionally to highway=cycleway includes either foot=designated or foot=yes, such as ways 5212511 or 23860341, respectively. For an overview see also https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/16W9. The only cycleway segment in this 200+ km long route not explicitly tagged as accessible to pedestrians seems to be the ca. 1 km long way 28927961. However, aerial imagery suggests that it might be actually permitted to pedestrians but just not tagged as such. Therefore I don't think there is an actual problem with the routing.

TheGreatRefrigerator commented 3 years ago

This was more a question of preference for hikers. Even if it is allowed for "foot-hiking" to use cycleways it would be rather preferred to use other ways. Similar to how bicycles are allowed on some roads, but recommended usually does not take them, even if they are the fastest and straight forward connection. That's why i suggested to increase the penalty for cycleways