Cycle Travel Question

Cycle-touring, Expeditions, Adventures, Major cycle routes NOT LeJoG (see other special board)
Psamathe
Posts: 17616
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Cycle Travel Question

Post by Psamathe »

pal wrote: 17 Apr 2022, 5:47pm Hello Richard (and/or other OSM experts!)

Today I had a very nice, cycle.travel planned, ride through Co. Durham -- in the course of which I discovered that Whorlton Bridge (which crosses the Tees just east of Barnard Castle) is still closed to all traffic, incl. pedestrians and cyclists. I've had a look at OSM, where this closure is noted (https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?edit ... 8/-1.83704), but cycle.travel still generated a route which sent me (or wanted to send me, rather!) across the closed bridge. Presumably this means that some vital tag is still missing from OSM -- do you have thoughts on what it might be?
...
This is a interesting challenge that I don't know the answer to but it's not just a cycle.travel issue. Many mapping/routing systems are based on periodic batch downloads of OSM data which are then used locally (on your phone or on routing server) for a period between updates. And beyond the batch download delays you get issues about updates to the OSM data itself which is dependent on volunteers. Voluntary updates and maintenance is bound to result in some geographic areas being very responsive to road closures (with very dedicated active local volunteers) and other areas not being to responsive and even better areas suddenly becoming inaccurate as a volunteer goes on tour/holiday.

And for routing it can work both ways. Your post is with regard to routing you down a closed road but one could envisage posts "why didn't it route me down ..." because the better route was closed last week but OSM has not yet updated.

Even if one envisaged an ideal nirvana where council highways updated OSM or provided the information directly to routing systems, even their data is sometimes "poor" e.g. near me we'd had "Road closed 20-27 March" signs up yet on the 20th (1st closure day) afternoon I walked the road and met the traffic management company removing all their signs, so I asked and apparently the job had been completed in a few hours on the morning of the 20th and didn't take the scheduled 7 days.

Ian
pal
Posts: 612
Joined: 22 Mar 2008, 11:49am

Re: Cycle Travel Question

Post by pal »

Psamathe wrote: 18 Apr 2022, 12:28pm ....

And for routing it can work both ways. Your post is with regard to routing you down a closed road but one could envisage posts "why didn't it route me down ..." because the better route was closed last week but OSM has not yet updated.

....

Ian
Yes, indeed! I was in Greece last month, and encountered exactly that scenario. I suppose all we can do is (try to) fix the problems when we come across them, and otherwise embrace the adventure that unexpected detours might bring...

(Back in the Olden Days of paper maps, I was more than once left completely befuddled when coming across entire roads which, according to my map, weren't supposed to exist, or -- esp. in Norway -- tunnels which had suddenly appeared...)
Psamathe
Posts: 17616
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Cycle Travel Question

Post by Psamathe »

pal wrote: 18 Apr 2022, 12:39pm
Psamathe wrote: 18 Apr 2022, 12:28pm ....

And for routing it can work both ways. Your post is with regard to routing you down a closed road but one could envisage posts "why didn't it route me down ..." because the better route was closed last week but OSM has not yet updated.

....

Ian
Yes, indeed! I was in Greece last month, and encountered exactly that scenario. I suppose all we can do is (try to) fix the problems when we come across them, and otherwise embrace the adventure that unexpected detours might bring...

(Back in the Olden Days of paper maps, I was more than once left completely befuddled when coming across entire roads which, according to my map, weren't supposed to exist, or -- esp. in Norway -- tunnels which had suddenly appeared...)
I suppose another aspect is that when cycling I generaly ignore "Road closed" signs as most of the time the road might be closed to motor vehicles (cars and larger) but there is still enough space for me to cycle through. Last month I ignored a "Road closed" sign and as I approached I saw the road was completely closed, no way through but also those working the site has seen me and were already moving their barriers and diggers to let me through!

So then you get into the nature of the obstruction and the cooperation of those working at the site ...

Ian
User avatar
RickH
Posts: 5832
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: Cycle Travel Question

Post by RickH »

Psamathe wrote: 18 Apr 2022, 12:28pmAnd for routing it can work both ways. Your post is with regard to routing you down a closed road but one could envisage posts "why didn't it route me down ..." because the better route was closed last week but OSM has not yet updated.
I don't know if it was someone's attempt at indicating a road closure but I did find one time that CT wouldn't route along a short section of road that I wanted to use(the B5152 near Delamere in Cheshire). I used 2 waypoints & "go direct to" between them in CT & found, as I suspected, that the road was open with no sign of any obstruction. I found OSM indicated a complete gap with no road, so joined the dots shortly after.
Psamathe wrote: 18 Apr 2022, 12:28pmEven if one envisaged an ideal nirvana where council highways updated OSM or provided the information directly to routing systems, even their data is sometimes "poor" e.g. near me we'd had "Road closed 20-27 March" signs up yet on the 20th (1st closure day) afternoon I walked the road and met the traffic management company removing all their signs, so I asked and apparently the job had been completed in a few hours on the morning of the 20th and didn't take the scheduled 7 days.

Ian
I suppose they have to allow for the worst likely scenario & closing the road for less time than scheduled is more popular than the opposite. It could have been a case where a defect could have been major subsidence of the underlying road structure but actually just needed a straightforward, but maybe deeper than simple resurface, repair.
Former member of the Cult of the Polystyrene Head Carbuncle.
User avatar
Sweep
Posts: 8441
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 4:57pm
Location: London

Re: Cycle Travel Question

Post by Sweep »

Any reason Richard why if you select "any surface" and ask for a route between Keld and Reeth you get, with no alternative offered, a 12.2 mile route offered rather than the 11.3 mile route which uses what I take to be the swale trail at the beginning followed by a backway road to Gunnerside before rejoining the Yorkshire Dales route?
Is the first bit of offroad considered too extreme in some way?
(I can manually get it to route that way wth no refusals)
Sweep
Richard Fairhurst
Posts: 2027
Joined: 2 Mar 2008, 4:57pm
Location: Charlbury, Oxfordshire

Re: Cycle Travel Question

Post by Richard Fairhurst »

Pretty much! c.t generally likes smoother surfaces, and in this case the B road is quiet, scenic, and has less climbing than the off-road route. There's not much in it though - if the traffic on the B road were heavier it would default to the off-road route, and if you drag the start point to the Swale bridge (only a few hundred metres away) it happily chooses it.
cycle.travel - maps, journey-planner, route guides and city guides
User avatar
Sweep
Posts: 8441
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 4:57pm
Location: London

Re: Cycle Travel Question

Post by Sweep »

Richard Fairhurst wrote: 3 May 2022, 9:47am Pretty much! c.t generally likes smoother surfaces, and in this case the B road is quiet, scenic, and has less climbing than the off-road route. There's not much in it though - if the traffic on the B road were heavier it would default to the off-road route, and if you drag the start point to the Swale bridge (only a few hundred metres away) it happily chooses it.
:)
thanks for the info richard - always nice to understand the great thing's mind.
And the methodology you outline sure makes sense for long trips where you want to cover distance at a reasonable speed.
Sweep
sjs
Posts: 1305
Joined: 24 Jan 2010, 10:08pm
Location: Hitchin

Re: Cycle Travel Question

Post by sjs »

Sweep wrote: 3 May 2022, 9:59am
Richard Fairhurst wrote: 3 May 2022, 9:47am Pretty much! c.t generally likes smoother surfaces, and in this case the B road is quiet, scenic, and has less climbing than the off-road route. There's not much in it though - if the traffic on the B road were heavier it would default to the off-road route, and if you drag the start point to the Swale bridge (only a few hundred metres away) it happily chooses it.
:)
thanks for the info richard - always nice to understand the great thing's mind.
And the methodology you outline sure makes sense for long trips where you want to cover distance at a reasonable speed.
OSM can be very variable with its surface descriptions, so allowing unpaved sections can get quite interesting, in my experience, if reasonably easy progress is near the top of the list of requirements.
On the other hand sometimes it boils down to a matter of personal taste. As an example I am familiar with, as a route from Woburn to WInslow (Bucks), cycle.travel is willing to put up with a trek through the backstreets of Bletchley, including a stretch neighbouring the A5, for the prize of reaching NCN 51 for the final stretch. The route chosen if "paved only" is selected is much pleasanter, whatever kind of bike you ride. But that's just my opinion, and I don't suppose any measure of pleasantness figures in the algorithm.
Richard Fairhurst
Posts: 2027
Joined: 2 Mar 2008, 4:57pm
Location: Charlbury, Oxfordshire

Re: Cycle Travel Question

Post by Richard Fairhurst »

sjs wrote: 3 May 2022, 12:33pm But that's just my opinion, and I don't suppose any measure of pleasantness figures in the algorithm.
It does, a bit! There's a "scenery" component to the algorithm, which downweights tracks alongside busy roads, and prefers routes through pleasant scenery. But it's not the strongest part of the weighting, because otherwise it would start routing you over stunning mountain scenery with massive climbs at the first opportunity. ;)

The "Find alternative" button is always worth trying - in the Woburn–Winslow case it does identify the more southerly route as an option.
cycle.travel - maps, journey-planner, route guides and city guides
User avatar
chris_suffolk
Posts: 738
Joined: 18 Oct 2012, 10:01pm

Re: Cycle Travel Question

Post by chris_suffolk »

Can you point me to the 'find alternative' button as I can't see it on my screen

Thanks
Richard Fairhurst
Posts: 2027
Joined: 2 Mar 2008, 4:57pm
Location: Charlbury, Oxfordshire

Re: Cycle Travel Question

Post by Richard Fairhurst »

On desktop it's on the left:
Screenshot 2022-05-03 at 19.26.10.png
Screenshot 2022-05-03 at 19.26.10.png (16.24 KiB) Viewed 619 times
On mobile it's towards the bottom of the 'hamburger' menu (top right).
cycle.travel - maps, journey-planner, route guides and city guides
User avatar
Sweep
Posts: 8441
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 4:57pm
Location: London

Re: Cycle Travel Question

Post by Sweep »

apologies richard - should know this after using your fine tool for a fair old while, but:

will cycletravel avoid steps?

(usually marked on OCM I think but can be very hard to spot.)

If not, will it highlight steps in any way?

Not a great problem unloaded but can be a substantial issue when loaded - did a route once, though can't remember which prog, and if cycletravel I may have unwisely manually forced a route in some way, and I came across some I had to do a lengthly detour around.

**** EDIT - JUST seen that it will route via steps after running down the detailed route of a test route.

So, two questions.

1: Would it be possible to have a tick box to ask for routes without steps?

2 If 1 not possible would it be possible to have a flag on a route (at the top, not buried in the detailed listing) that it contains steps - maybe with a link to the actual bit of the route that has them - so maybe they can be worked round?

Steps can be a big problem - apologies if issue had been raised before.
Sweep
User avatar
simonineaston
Posts: 7993
Joined: 9 May 2007, 1:06pm
Location: ...at a cricket ground

Re: Cycle Travel Question

Post by simonineaston »

That's a great Q, sweep! I only recenty discoverd that steps are marked on OSM - here's an example near me. It's not intended to show steps that appear on a potential cycle route, but just to show what they look like.
screenshot of Open Street Map
screenshot of Open Street Map
S
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
Richard Fairhurst
Posts: 2027
Joined: 2 Mar 2008, 4:57pm
Location: Charlbury, Oxfordshire

Re: Cycle Travel Question

Post by Richard Fairhurst »

It doesn't like steps and will try to avoid them! But if a few steps enable an otherwise better route, it may pass over them. Where the number of steps is marked in OpenStreetMap, c.t will take that into account - lugging a bike up three steps is obviously much easier than 80. As ever, if you tell it to go a particular way by adding via points, that increases the chance of it choosing something it wouldn't otherwise like.

There's no chance of a "no steps" checkbox I'm afraid (for the usual reason - every route option basically means a new server), but highlighting steps is a really good idea: I'll look into that.
cycle.travel - maps, journey-planner, route guides and city guides
Psamathe
Posts: 17616
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Cycle Travel Question

Post by Psamathe »

Richard Fairhurst wrote: 5 May 2022, 10:16am It doesn't like steps and will try to avoid them! But if a few steps enable an otherwise better route, it may pass over them. Where the number of steps is marked in OpenStreetMap, c.t will take that into account - lugging a bike up three steps is obviously much easier than 80. As ever, if you tell it to go a particular way by adding via points, that increases the chance of it choosing something it wouldn't otherwise like.

There's no chance of a "no steps" checkbox I'm afraid (for the usual reason - every route option basically means a new server), but highlighting steps is a really good idea: I'll look into that.
But even a few steps on a bent trike is a nightmare.

I appreciate the reasons there cannot be a "no steps" option but any chance of a warning and/or highlight steps on route in a different colour or mybe a blob (as they will be short compared to route or something noticeable) so we can ue "Add via point" to avoid them? (A bit like tracks are shown in green but maybe some icon beside the short different colour section to make it obvious?)

Edit: Thinking more about this, there are quite a few potential "issues" with routes e.g. cycling EV15 there was a tributary the route took a ferry to cross. I arrived at that point to find the ferry moored out in the river and deserted - only a few miles back and round detour but maybe define such things as "warning" and put a warning sign icon at that point of the route and say what the reason is in a tooltip e.g. "ferry" or "25 steps". Even use the sme system to make "get off and push hills" a map warning (as well as the altitude plot warning already shown). If some people like a clean map have a single checkbox to "show/hide warnings".

Ian
Post Reply