bicycle routing onto osm "path" tags. Why?

[Bryan Keith]

Hello,

I have been looking at the m11n-gravel profile and find it to be the closest previously-prepared profile to generate routes that I'd like to see.  I am surprised, however, by how willing it is to take me on osm tag "path" routes.  It seems these are often footpaths that would be very difficult to push a touring bicycle.

Consider these three examples:

https://brouter.m11n.de/#map=13/38.0124/31.1410/standard&lonlats=31.070389,37.976642;31.122769,38.048692&profile=m11n-gravel
https://brouter.m11n.de/#map=13/37.2294/31.1683/standard&lonlats=31.179439,37.237267;31.127746,37.228525&profile=m11n-gravel
https://brouter.m11n.de/#map=13/37.1856/30.9307/standard&lonlats=30.900062,37.144986;30.918781,37.206368&profile=m11n-gravel

They all have considerably steep and/or long sections on "paths" which are mountain trails.  Maybe the problem here is that they are not tagged specifically as footpaths.  If I increase the cost of using paths, I get better (for me) results for a touring bicycle.  Here are my preferred routes.

Warning these links are probably broken.  If so, use the attached (I hope) profile.

https://brouter.m11n.de/#map=13/38.0128/31.0703/standard&lonlats=31.070389,37.976642;31.122769,38.048692&profile=custom_7054945920122
https://brouter.m11n.de/#map=13/37.2294/31.1683/standard&lonlats=31.179439,37.237267;31.127746,37.228525&profile=custom_7054945920122
https://brouter.m11n.de/#map=13/37.1856/30.9307/standard&lonlats=30.900062,37.144986;30.918781,37.206368&profile=custom_7054945920122

From what I'm seeing it seems obvious to me that "paths" are to be avoided.  So I'm just wondering why the bicycle profiles do not assign a higher cost to path.  Are these mountain paths that I'm looking at exceptional?  What problems will I cause or disadvantages will I have with assigning higher cost to paths?

I realize that custom profile won't stay very long on the server so I'll try to attach it here.

BTW, I tried this profile on the Barcelona route in the "Calculating uncyclable routes" thread, and it appears to give the desired results if I understood the poster's question correctly.

[Poutnik Fornntp]

I am not going to address profiles written by others, so I am pointing out the general topic of highway=path controversy

along the highway=path and highway-footway

[Poutnik Fornntp]

P.S.: That means the topic of highway=path is much more complex and OSm paths are far more than being "an outdoor trail for pedestrians".

út 25. 5. 2021 v 14:32 odesílatel Poutnik Fornntp <poutni...@gmail.com> napsal:

[Volker Schmidt]

I note that the Usage_as_a_universal_tag is missing in the highway=path controversy page.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OSM Android bikerouting" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osm-android-biker...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osm-android-bikerouting/CAJV%3Df_%3Ddjm4%3D-eFCDN2K4Lrj4Q46cCrqhknL7DBkXzxEE994xw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bryan Keith]

Poutnik,

Thank you.  All those were useful reading.  For now, for routing in
rural areas of Turkey, I'm going to continue with an elevated cost
(compared to m11n-gravel) for highway=path.

Bryan

On 5/25/21 3:32 PM, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
>
> I am not going to address profiles written by others, so I am pointing
> out the general topic of highway=path controversy

> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy>
> along the highway=path
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath> and
> highway-footway
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway>
>

[Poutnik Fornntp]

Unless you are aware of it, you may find these links interesting:

https://github.com/poutnikl/Brouter-profiles

https://github.com/poutnikl/Brouter-profiles/wiki

https://github.com/poutnikl/Brouter-profiles/Glossary

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/poutnikl/Trekking-Poutnik/develop/Trekking-Poutnik.brf

While I do not claim my profiles are superior, there is one unique thing about them: they are largely configurable/tunable.

st 26. 5. 2021 v 6:06 odesílatel Bryan Keith <bryanden...@gmail.com> napsal:

[Ess Bee]

Hello,

I agree, "highway=path" alone is not enough for a perfect routing:

Further tags should be specified in OSM, but they are optional!!!

surface

smoothness

bicycle

Depending on your bike type (Fastbike, trekking, MTB) it can be difficult to estimate the costs...

But in a montain area, your tip is right:

By using  the "elevation" you can avoid paths (or tracks) with very strong uphill / downhill parts.

As example my MTB profile:

assign downhillcost  60

assign downhillcutoff switch consider_elevation 1.5 9

assign uphillcost 100 

assign uphillcutoff switch consider_elevation 1.5 9

If "consider_elevation" is false, the highway get elevation cost only when climbing is > 9%, else when climbing is > 1,5%

Also with consider_elevation=false the routing avoids highway with strong uphills or downhills!

Regards