As an author of BRouter bike profiles, regarding access issues and fallbacks to foot access, the optimal approach is a balanced trade off:

What is the probability of (effectively ) incorrect disabling access and what is the impact ?

What is the probability of (effectively ) incorrect allowing access ( with penalty) and what is the impact ?

What is the comparison of these impacts multiplied with their probabilities ?

An optimal routing settings depend on user cases. BRouter profile usually use high penalties for stairs, with option to disable them

My profile use also tandem flag with extra penalties for pushing or hauling.




Dne 10. srpna 2020 14:48:10 Florian Lohoff <[email protected]> napsal:

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 07:28:52AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
Florian Lohoff <[email protected]> writes:

> Hi,
>
> last week i had the issue that OSMAnd tried to sent me through a
> highway=steps with my bike. I just quickly opened an OSM Note
> convinced that it must be a tagging issue:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2296491
>
> The way in question only carries a highway=steps and yes - in bicycle
> profile it gets used.
>
> A little to the east there is another steps which carries a bicycle=no
> which is not used.

That means that bicycles are prohibited.

> Does OSMAnd have some issues with steps for bikes?

It looks like they should at least be really de-preferred sort of like a
required dismount.

I would suggest reading routing.xml

Not just deprefer. Without user consent there should be NO usage of
steps AT ALL. Which would be inline with the osm wiki which
says "access=no/foot=yes" as implicit defaults.

There may be a "rail" which is okay for your city bike, not okay with
a child trailer or for me with a lot of Bikepacking gear on the bike for
a multi-week trip.

But still using a rail should be an option to select for the routing
profile not just assume that aunt tilly can carry her 30kg ebike up
steep steps on a rail.

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [email protected]
       UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OsmAnd" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osmand/20200810124804.xtjytqwezgcwccn5%40pax.zz.de.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"OsmAnd" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osmand/173d87a42f0.2799.a291d67f9894f806060d35c996ca15e9%40gmail.com.

Reply via email to