search

osmandapp / OsmAnd

OsmAnd
https://osmand.net
Other
4.63k stars 1.01k forks source link

Non-conforming route calculation [Fuel-efficient vs standard] #13217

Open xunil89 opened 2 years ago

xunil89 commented 2 years ago

The calculation of the route does not change with the choice from fast to fuel efficient (short) route. The calculation remains on the shortest route. The suggested route is also not suggested by any other navigator because the savings in km are highly frustrated by the winding road with low speed limits. I think that the route calculator needs to be revised. I have tried with other osm based navigators so the problem is not with road mapping. Version 4.0.9 android 11

scaidermern commented 2 years ago

"Fuel-efficient" is completely missleading and should be changed to "shortest" instead. OsmAnd is simply not able to calculate a fuel-efficient route at the moment.

xunil89 commented 2 years ago

"Fuel-efficient" is completely missleading and should be changed to "shortest" instead. OsmAnd is simply not able to calculate a fuel-efficient route at the moment.

On the Italian translation it is indicated as well as by icon. The point is that between the choice of fast and short route it did not vary the route, and it was not a route with small differences but with important differences, so there is something wrong with the route calculation engine. To understand from point "a" to "b" the shortest path is the hypotenuse the longest but faster and cathetus 1 cathetus 2 that are super roads (Italian nomenclature). While varying between fast and short percoarao remains on the hypotenuse passing through mountain passes....

pebogufi commented 2 years ago

"Fuel-efficient" is completely missleading and should be changed to "shortest" instead. OsmAnd is simply not able to calculate a fuel-efficient route at the moment.

Months (years?) ago it was "shortest". Due to the problem that "shortest" was not always shorter than fastest, it was renamed to "Fuel-efficient".

I propose just "Alternative route".

vshcherb commented 2 years ago

It's not 'shortest', cause it still prefers major roads vs minor roads but it limits all road-speed to max 70 kmh (inside routing). It's known that for most cars (especially electric), the optimum speed is 60-70kmh. So essentially it's fuel efficient, to be completely technically correct, it's the fastest route for a vehicle with max speed 70kmh

xunil89 commented 2 years ago

It's not 'shortest', cause it still prefers major roads vs minor roads but it limits all road-speed to max 70 kmh (inside routing). It's known that for most cars (especially electric), the optimum speed is 60-70kmh. So essentially it's fuel efficient, to be completely technically correct, it's the fastest route for a vehicle with max speed 70kmh

The problem is that the route calculation whether it is set to "fast" or "least conuamo" does not vary. It means that there is a problem in the calculation engine. It cannot not see a route that is shorter in terms of time by 2h and longer by only 50km in the fastest selection.

scaidermern commented 2 years ago

Please provide examples.

xunil89 commented 2 years ago

Please provide examples.

https://www.qwant.com/maps/routes/?mode=driving&destination=admin%3Aosm%3Arelation%3A47283%40Merano&origin=osm%3Away%3A238853175%40Chiesa_di_Lugugnana&selected=0#map=6.73/46.1720953/11.7215111