Route through the construction site

[Ciutnik]

Hi. I don't know if this is the right place to report a routing issue, but I noticed that they may be routed along roads under construction (highway=construction). In this case, it's a bridge that doesn't exist yet:

https://brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=17/52.22292/21.04570/standard&lonlats=21.047578,52.223741;21.044934,52.222082

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Authors of BRouter and wish all Users the best 🙂

[Oi-sin]

Me too I fell into this trap twice last week. The misc/profiles2/trekking.brf profile does not care about the construction=* tag and guides over bridges that are not usable.

One of my examples: routing over the bridge over the river Werse https://brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=18/52.02399/7.68867/standard&lonlats=7.691224,51.996482;7.686052,52.039082

[afischerdev]

No reaction from the friends of the profiles. So here are my two cents:

It's a little frustrating when you're standing in front of a bridge and can't get across. Especially when you're on foot. If you search for the keyword construction in this repository, you'll find some discussions on this topic.

How about a possible user decision?

We offer something like this:

assign ignore_construction        = false  # %ignore_construction% | Activate to go over a road on construction | boolean
...
assign costfactor
...
  else if ( and highway=construction  not ignore_construction ) then 10000

And the user can decide whether a passage is possible or not, everybody knows the own area mostly.

[devemux86]

@afischerdev Nice idea. 👍

To which profiles do you think we should add it?

[Oi-sin]

I don't know the background to why construction is ignored completely. Maybe it should be evaluated in combination with access tags. But if a road or bridge is in construction and is clearly tagged with access=no or bike=no routing over such a road almost always leads into a dead end and frustration. As I see it, the tagging in my example above is correct: it tells clearly, that the bridge cannot be used (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34184179). Being routed over such a bridge seems to be worse than not being routed there even when passing on foot or by pushing the bike might be somehow possible. This is a particular extreme example: being routed over the bridge and having to turn around at the bridge to cycle back and around the bridge adds another 5km to the tour compared the being routed around directly. Not counting the frustration.

[afischerdev]

@devemux86 In my eyes it is a problem for all routing profiles. In the repository only these profiles handle construction

hiking-mountain
  else if highway=proposed|abandoned|construction then (  switch ismuddy 10  switch iswet 6 4 )

mtb
    switch    highway=construction                     10000

And I think we need more samples.

@Oi-sin Yes, you are right, but this bridge also is part of a relation and the rule is a way with a bike route relation is always passable (even with access=no)

We have to discuss if this is still true or could be changed.

I think the biker routes are more motivated by tourism or sport than by the correctness of the road layout.

The rules are collected here

[mcliquid]

From my tagging experience, I would say that only a small percentage of all highway=construction tags also have access=no set. Regarding taginfo the combination is currently around 6.43 %. Additionally, the wiki says, in bold, that a highway=construction tag means “impassable by the traffic it is intended for”. Nowhere in the wiki is it recommended to set an access tag in addition to the construction tag. Furthermore, in practice no one edits a relation when a relation member way is changed to construction.

For these reasons, I would vote in favor of

• Ways with highway=construction are not passable/routable regardless of any access tags or route relations
• ignore_construction = false is set as default
• and, if applicable the costfactor is set to 10000 by default

(If someone wants to overwrite this in their profile, I would allow the option.)

[quaelnix]

In the repository only these profiles handle construction

gravel.brf also assigns a costfactor of 10000 to highway=construction:

https://brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=17/52.22130/21.04689/standard&lonlats=21.047578,52.223741;21.044934,52.222082&profile=gravel

[afischerdev]

@quaelnix Yes, you are right. I searched for construction and it was not found in gravel.brf. It's not explicitly mentioned and works through the last all other rule. This means that ways with construction and sidewalks (or something like this) may also be excluded, but could be passable for pedestrians or bikers.