I think your new mapping is correct, as it reflects reality - which is what most matters. You could improve it by curving the cycle path/sidewalk up to the crossing and aligning the kerb nodes to the aerial photo, but that's nitpicking.
That said, there's still a problem in that at least one routing engine (OSRM in bicycle mode) still sees kerbs as impassable to bicycles: https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_bike&route=55.0123%2C-1.4837%3B55.0130%2C-1.4810 but that's something the routing engine devs should fix (if you feel like contacting them); compare https://github.com/fossgis-routing-server/cbf-routing-profiles/blob/master/foot.lua#L35 https://github.com/fossgis-routing-server/cbf-routing-profiles/blob/master/bike.lua#L40 Even a non-lowered kerb is an obstacle to cycling, but not an insurmountable one, at least to able-bodied cyclists who can raise their bike over the kerb, so it should perhaps have a penalty in routing but not enough to make a 2km detour preferable. That said, the same goes for cars - other than the lowest bodied sports cars, pretty much all motor vehicles are capable of taking a kerb at low speed. On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:35 PM James Derrick <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > After investigating two reports of OSRM routing failures around North > Tyneside, the common factor I can see is barrier=kerb tags added to > highway=crossing nodes intersecting highway=tertiary and > highway=cycleway/ footway ways. > > Here are links to the two map note reports: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2030228 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2030238 > > To investigate the report, I entered the postcodes given into the > default routing engine on the OSM map and found VERY odd routes going > 10x the direct distance, and avoiding very obvious direct paths: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=55.0659%2C-1.4624%3B55.0511%2C-1.4530#map=14/55.0590/-1.4747&layers=N > > Personally, I'd not noticed the OSM main map had added several routing > engines as I use separate tools, so have no idea how often the routing > engines update their database extracts but expect the issue to be > visible for a few days. > > > After two examples of bad routing, I checked the paths between the > geolocated points given and found one common factor - barrier=kerb on a > road / footway highway=crossing node. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4341572135 > > My hunch is the router isn't familiar with barrier=kerb, so is assuming > BOTH ways are blocked and using an alternate path. > > > It is debatable how a routing engine should interpret highway=kerb tag, > however my own thought is the kerb is not on the highway=secondary - it > is on the highway=footway. > > If anywhere, there should be two nodes on the footway separate from the > secondary to give information to wheelchair accessibility routers. > > > As an experiment, I've removed the barrier=kerb from a highway-crossing > and added two nodes on the cycleway, with the additional explicit tags of: > > barrier=kerb > bicycle=yes > foot=yes > wheelchair=limited > kerb=lowered > tactile_paving=yes > horse=yes (ISTR UK law says cycle = horse!) > > This is rather cumbersome compared with one barrier=kerb tag on the > node, but logic suggests this is more consistent with reality and > current routers. > > > Has any one used the barrier=kerb tag, or is familiar with the inner > workings of OSRM or similar engines please? > > Thanks, > > > James > -- > James Derrick > [email protected], Cramlington, England > I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me... > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
