Bicycle routing: Footway preferred over bicycle-yes secondary

[Langlaeufer]

🐞 routing report

Routing engine

OsmAnd's in-app offline routing

Routing Profile

Bicycle balanced, with and without elevation

Start and end points

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_valhalla_bicycle&route=51.71290%2C10.52235%3B51.71133%2C10.52133#map=18/51.71228/10.52220

Actual and expected routes

I Expect Routing on the carigeway because cycling on sidewalk is not allowed

I get this:

street is highway=secondary bicycle=yes surface=asphalt sidewalk is highway=footway foot=designated surface=paving_stones

Main Issue: preferring routing on footway/sidewalk with no hint that this may be allowed there!

🌍 Your Environment

OsmAnd Version:

OSMAnd+ 4.3.5

Device and Android/iOS version: Galaxy S7 / Android 8 Galaxy Tab A7 / Android 12

Maps used (online or offline): Deutschland Niedersachsen 01.01.2023, up to date live updates

[vshcherb]

Actually can't reproduce yet - https://osmand.net/map?start=51.712864%2C10.522188&end=51.711106%2C10.520965&mode=bicycle#18/51.71206/10.52304

[vmicho]

why are footpaths on the 2nd picture suddenly blue? That indicates a cycleway normally. Isn't there by accident some option to threat them as cyclepaths?

[Langlaeufer]

why are footpaths on the 2nd picture suddenly blue?

Style UniRS: here footways are blue and cycleways are purple.

[Langlaeufer]

On my Android Devices the Problem still exists. I was mapping at this place after 1.1.2023 so if the data is older the result may vary.

[Zirochkabila]

OsmAnd~ 4.4.0#14120mqta, released: 2023-01-22 Try changing your driving style to "Balanced"

https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/104760013/213923764-f9ebb93e-a71f-4dbf-bd02-6f8cd6642d69.mp4

[Langlaeufer]

My Issue is Routing Profile Bicycle balanced, with and without elevation

You are using out of date data.

And the result is not convincing. Starting cycling on the wrong side of the street and taking a much longer (relative) way.

Let's see if the february update solves the problem.

[Langlaeufer]

This is not a problem of incremental updates because after monthly update the problem of navigation along footways instead of streets still exist. I guess it is the weighting of the edges. OSMAnd tries in balanced bicycle routing to avoid the (secondary) roads more than driving on unauthorised footways.

[vshcherb]

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/15515409#map=18/51.71265/10.52261 should be preferred over https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121950700/history#map=19/51.71287/10.52277 (cause 1) bicycle-yes 2) foot-designated).

Penalty for 5 crossing=unmarked gives extra 15 seconds penalties (5*3) and designated bicycle route on secondary road ( cost 53 -> 77) vs 57 cost of inefficient footway route.

Possible approach to fix it:

1. Remove priority 1.3 for <select value="1.0" t="surface" v="paving_stones"/> cause asphalt doesn't have it.
2. Make speed on secondary faster than footway <select value="15" t="highway" v="secondary"/> <select value="13" t="highway" v="footway"/>
3. Make sure bicycle-yes <select value="1.3" t="bicycle" v="yes"/> is not only in avoid footways
4. crossing=unmarked causes 15 seconds delay

[Langlaeufer]

Why unmarked crossings give 3s delay? I would expect them to have no influence to the street at all.

[Langlaeufer]

bicycle=yes on the secondary road should not make any difference. bicycle=yes is default for normal roads (except motorways). https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Worldwide (only avoiding trunk roads is debatable)