Cycling: navigator takes unpaved paths
  • I live next to a forest. The cycling routes are getting better and better, but it also takes unpaved routes through the forest where a cycleway lies 150 meter away but is indeed slightly longer. It doesn't matter though whether I choose fastest or shortest, it leads me through the forest whereas I would prefer to take the cycleway (and I think many cyclists with me).

    Is it possible to add an option like "avoid unpaved roads" for cycling? Or adapt the priority in the current setup for the roads as to set unpaved (much) lower than paved?
    Maybe already in the current 1.3.xy+ beta? ;)

    Edit: I think this is also valid for the Car profiles. It will most probably only occur for "local road" and "small local road", but when enabled I think you don't want to drive over an unpaved road either.
    (I have enabled the "Small local road" also in my Car profile with settings like 30/30/50, due to the fact that in the Netherlands many suburbs are now (almost) completely 30 km/h. Navigator had the tendency to go too early to a "bigger" road leading to sometimes real "sub-optimal" much longer routes.)
  • 9 Comments sorted by
  • no way in 1.3.x, sorry. If nothing else, it will require new format, new data, new interface and most users will need to upgrade the application before data with new format will be available for download ...
  • Would be paved/unpaved distinction enough or more detailed coding is necessary? For Luxembourg (slightly bigger testing country than Andorra) are frequencies following:

    | surface               | count(*) |
    | asphalt               |    53984 |
    | NULL                  |    47792 |
    | ground                |     6822 |
    | paved                 |     4990 |
    | dirt                  |     2457 |
    | gravel                |     2432 |
    | paving_stones         |     1395 |
    | unpaved               |      940 |
    | grass                 |      701 |
    | cobblestone           |      604 |
    | concrete              |      257 |
    | compacted             |      173 |
    | sand                  |      165 |
    | wood                  |      150 |
    | mud                   |       32 |
    | cobblestone:flattened |       31 |
    | earth                 |       27 |
    | concrete:lanes        |       19 |
    | fine_gravel           |       18 |
    | grass_paver           |        7 |
    | metal                 |        6 |
    | stone                 |        6 |
    | tarmac                |        5 |
    | pebblestone           |        3 |
    | ground; unpaved       |        2 |
    | dirt;concrete         |        2 |
    | ground; asphalt       |        2 |
    | grint                 |        2 |
    | ground;gravel         |        2 |
    | diverse               |        2 |
    | grass;ground          |        2 |
    | ground;asphalt        |        1 |
    | gravel;ground         |        1 |
    | wood;grass            |        1 |
    | ground,_stones        |        1 |
    |  ground               |        1 |
    | wood;metal            |        1 |
    | Ground_(Muddy)        |        1 |
    | wood;concrete         |        1 |

  • I don't think it will be enough. Next to that: Cobblestone is paved (to my opinion), but I definitely don't like cobblestones.
    This is a tricky one to implement. I think that "normal" cyclist would prefer paved whereas mountain bikers would prefer unpaved. So where to make the distinction?

    For cars it would be much simpler: Either you can take it, no matter the condition, or you can't which makes it "unpaved". (Heavy snowfall is also on a motorway a problem).
  • At the moment I am talking about cyclists only. Paved/unpaved bit could be used for cars at the end. The question is if it is necessary to add there more bits like "cobblestone" you mentioned ... and I can see that you choose preferences (down to disabled) that if there is no other road you may still accept "cobblestone", right?
  • Currently I'm of course reflecting my own preferences, but in general I could imagine that cyclists would prefer paved, smooth cycle paths (asphalt, paved, concrete, paving sones, compacted, etc), over paved, rough cycle paths (cobblestones, grass_paver, etc) over unpaved (gravel, ground, mud, etc.)

    If the (additional) tag smoothness is available you could also take that one as leading (if exist "tag=smoothness" then "use smoothness in decreasing order" else "use paved/unpaved in decreasing order".

    That would make it of course more complex.

    And yes: if nothing else is available I personally would accept cobblestone. Preferably you should have an option in your cyclist profile to define your own preferences inside these cycle paths like you can do now for roads. It would be a nested category inside the vehicle_profiles.xml.
    And additionally to this: to be able to also block some cycle paths from it (like is possible now for roads). To come back on those cobblestones: My wife has had "carpal tunnel syndrome" in both wrists and she definitely can't stand the bumpines of cobblestones. I fully understand that you can't honor my wishes, but I simply want to make clear that cyclists can have specific reasons why they don't want to take a certain kind of cycle path (and mountain bikers might prefer unpaved over paved).

  • Thanks - at the end I will have to make the cut somewhere, i.e. I do not want to start with all possible combinations. New bits will be probably to distinguish stairs, paved/unpaved, access cyclist, access pedestrian. We did not collect "smoothness" tag yet, so I will see in October.

    Does anybody else have some comments/preferences about tags for cyclists and the road attributes?
  • Now, I for my part when bicycling prefer unpaved paths over boring paved roads. It's more fun to ride, at least for me. And I'm not a a mountain biker, just normal trekking bike.

  • Please consider bicycle=no and use_sidepath, just for repetition :)
  • @chattiewoman - that would be the "access cyclist bit" ... thanks (I wrote that down before)

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion