I have an issue when using the bike profiles, none of them seem to use designated cycle routes.
Here between Guildford and Shoreham-by-Sea there is a national cycleway no. 223 The routing offered completely ignores this path.
What is missing here?
Yeah, even if you force it to strongly prefer the national bike network it won’t use it.
The problem is likely that we currently try to slow down on highway=bridleway: graphhopper/core/src/main/java/com/graphhopper/routing/util/parsers/BikeCommonAverageSpeedParser.java at master · graphhopper/graphhopper · GitHub
without considering tagging like bicycle=yes|designated …
@ratrun do you think we should fix this (or consider country-specific rules for bridleway access)?
And why don’t we have the same problem for foot where we do not include bridleway in the allowed highway tags?
This really is a credibility issue for Bike routing, but we do need to be careful as often the National Cycle Network routes are not suitable for all bikes. So, it needs some sort of paved / unpaved parameter for Roadbike vs MTB.
We consider surface already. I think the only problem is that we assign a low speed to bridleway although the way is tagged as bicycle=designated.
Yes, the problem is that we get to the speed result of 4km/h for the brigleway case in combination to surface. This is because we take the surface speed only if the highway speed is bigger compared to the surface speed. This is needed for highway=path. I don’t think that we somehow specifically need to check the bicycle tag in conjunction to bridgleway.
The priority handling already works fine 
I’m going to provide a PR.
1 Like