Bug in Profile "Wandern, Original" (hiking-mountain)

[xlm0815]

http://brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=16/47.8126/12.0850/osm-mapnik-german_style,route-quality&lonlats=12.087643,47.809559;12.089918,47.815057&profile=hiking-mountain There seems to be a bug in the profile, since it routes over a bridge in construction. The other profiles work just fine in avoiding this.

[poutnikl]

It should be rather reported at https://github.com/poutnikl/Hiking-Poutnik

It was not a bug, but intention, allowing as a fallback sneaking along with a penalty. Sure, such an approach may fail for bridges.

I have not checked yet the mode with all tags visible, for now there was not tag related to a bridge, OTOH there are sidewalks. So technical foot passability is questionable, considering "OSM reality".

else if highway=proposed|abandoned|construction then ( switch ismuddy 10 switch is_wet 6 4 )

[xlm0815]

Your are right - a road under construction is rarely impassable for pedestrians, even if there are no sidewalks. Bridges however tend to be the most time fully closed until finishing the work, since without the structure there is nothing to walk on. And for security reasons, the area is usually thoroughly fenced. Hopefully there is a way to implement the bridge under construction into the profile, since it can be a large detour to reach the next crossing of the bridged obstacle.

[poutnikl]

I have realized that

• Even with processUnusedTags = True, the bridge does not have OSM tag bridge=yes, even if recognized by BRouter - see lookups.dat.
• Default access of the profile does honour the present access=no,
• Foot access overrides access=no if there are sidewalks ( present).

assign footaccess     or any_hiking_route 
                      or issidewalk 
                      or and bikeaccess  not foot=no
                      or bicycle=dismount
                      switch foot=      defaultaccess    not foot=private|no

Possible mittigations:

• There can be added for the bridge in OSM the tag bridge=yes and to use more strict restrictions for bridges, e.g. ignoring sidewalks, like or ( and issidewalk not ( and bridge=yes highway=construction )) . .
• Regardless of being bridge or not, there is chance of both false positives and false negatives, as highway=construction and access=no may or may not apply on sidewalks.
• It would help to use explicit access foot=no, which could be implied as applicable to sidewalks, with modification of footaccess logic.

I would invite the user opinion what would cause the least issues, on OSM data and profile levels.