Improving MTB routing with supplemental GPX information

[utagawal]

During the summer a student worked on a project to supplement OSM data with a MTB GPX heatmap allowing better automatic routing routing for Mountain Biking. Why ? Because on top of information contained within the OSM graph, it is also usefull to know that a user has taken a certain path (segments), and even better multiple users did so.

The OSM segments weights created out of the existing GPX tracks where used by the routing algorithm and significantly improved MTB routing.

@abrensch The proof of concept has been done, would that be something that could be implemented in Brouter ? (see https://github.com/utagawal/mtb-router)

[EssBee59]

Hello utagawal!

I'll try to explain my thoughts on your suggestion, and first describe how I plan my MTB-tours:

• When planning tours in attractive regions, I search for ready-made tracks (round trip) in the relevant radius on the internet (the offer is huge!).
• If I want to bike from A to B, I use the Brouter (with my own MTB profiles!). Your suggestion is to combine both methods by "integrating" or "preferring" parts of the ready-made / beloved tracks in the routing of my tour.

I see several risks in doing so:

• The quality of the finished tracks (or segments as you call them) is difficult to secure.
• There are very different track types (from trekking to downhill!!)
• There is also a legal aspect (trail allowed or not)

And it's really very easy to combine a tour "manually" (routing to the segment start, navigation with the segment, then routing again to go home!). Some navigation apps even allow to plan such a tour in advance (Osmand for example).

That is the way I prefer to navigate and I do not really need the solution you suggest.

For my usage, I would prefer one or both of the following "generic" extension: Relying on OSM data, it seems possible to introduce new criteria for route calculation

• Noise on the route
• Attractiveness of the route for cyclists (proximity to rivers, parks etc..) (See issue #460) Regards

[utagawal]

Thanks for the reply. The method you use is indeed the traditional one and works perfectly, however we can already see that Garmin, Strava and Komoot are using the method suggested using their own data to improve the quality of suggested rides to their users.Why are they doing so for Mountain biking ? Probably because OSM data only does not (yet) provide enough information for riding and users are looking for more "secure tracks" than the ones computed with OSM only. The suggestion you made for 

• Noise on the route
• Attractiveness of the route for cyclists (proximity to rivers, parks etc..)
  (See issue #460) would definitely be already a fantastic improvement ! Regarding the risks you mention, some thoughts :
• The quality of the finished tracks (or segments as you call them) is difficult to secure : it depends the source you use for the heatmap. On eg UtagawaVTT.com, all tracks are moderated before being exposed online, so the qulity is "good" if the enrichment with other tracks providers is suggested, then a data quality indicator could also be displayed to warn the user ?
• There are very different track types (from trekking to downhill!!) : correct, this could be mitigated using the OSM data.
• There is also a legal aspect (trail allowed or not) : again the information could be contained within OSM Thanks for the dicussion ! Le mercredi 19 octobre 2022 à 11:48:07 UTC+2, EssBee59 @.***> a écrit :

Hello utagawal!

I'll try to explain my thoughts on your suggestion, and first describe how I plan my MTB-tours:

• When planning tours in attractive regions, I search for ready-made tracks (round trip) in the relevant radius on the internet (the offer is huge!).
• If I want to bike from A to B, I use the Brouter (with my own MTB profiles!).
  Your suggestion is to combine both methods by "integrating" or "preferring" parts of the ready-made / beloved tracks in the routing of my tour.

I see several risks in doing so:

• The quality of the finished tracks (or segments as you call them) is difficult to secure.
• There are very different track types (from trekking to downhill!!)
• There is also a legal aspect (trail allowed or not)

And it's really very easy to combine a tour "manually" (routing to the segment start, navigation with the segment, then routing again to go home!). Some navigation apps even allow to plan such a tour in advance (Osmand for example).

That is the way I prefer to navigate and I do not really need the solution you suggest.

For my usage, I would prefer one or both of the following "generic" extension: Relying on OSM data, it seems possible to introduce new criteria for route calculation

• Noise on the route
• Attractiveness of the route for cyclists (proximity to rivers, parks etc..)
  (See issue #460)
  Regards

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: @.***>