See the following routing result:
Some segments in the Helsinki ferry terminal area such as this one are mapped as private, which I consider as wrong. But even if tagging as permissive, which I would consider as more correct, would not give the proper result.
What tags do you consider as correct? Do we need to reconsider our blocking default for access=permissive?
As other routing engines shows the same problem I also think this is likely a tagging mistake.
Do we need to reconsider our blocking default for
access=permissive?
What do you mean here? I think access=permissive should be already allowed - is it not?
btw: for motor vehicle routing we have now defaulted to allowing even private roads (but only if a start, via or destination is on such a road).
And combined with this pull request this should result in better routes. However for bike or foot this might be a bit more tricky due to different requirements and tags - but not sure.
What do you mean here? I think access=permissive should be already allowed - is it not?
Sorry for the confusion, this was my error. Yes, access=permissive is already allowed, you are right. But I think I detected the two real problems now:
The first one is the wrong tagging of access=private as indicated above. Here I asked the author if his modifications from access=permissive into access=private is really correct.
The second one is our current access handling for bikes: In BikeRoadAccess.java we turn access=customers into PRIVATE:
And further on in the bike related default rules like racingbike.json we block it with this line:
{ "if": "bike_road_access == PRIVATE", "multiply_by": "0" },
Here I think that we should add CUSTOMERS to the enums of BikeRoadAccess and add a line like
{ "if": "bike_road_access == CUSTOMERS", "multiply_by": "0.5" },
Shall I prepare a PR for this or do you have a better solution?
btw: for motor vehicle routing we have now defaulted to allowing even private roads (but only if a start, via or destination is on such a road).
Interesting. Why did you introduce this modification for car only? I think it makes even more sense for bike and foot. Can you please point me to the PR where this was introduced, I missed this.
One can easily use it for others of course. But this would require edge base CH which is rather expensive and for motor vehicles we need it anyway due to turn restrictions.
Here I think that we should add CUSTOMERS to the enums of BikeRoadAccess and add a line like
At the moment, from the routing perspective, I do not think that private/delivery/customer/permit should be handled differently.
Can you please point me to the PR where this was introduced, I missed this.
There is no code change as this is a configuration decision.
OK, but then we need to change the blocking of bike_road_access == PRIVATE. I’m going to prepare a PR for that.
There is no code change as this is a configuration decision.
Thank you for the explanation.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
