[EN] I think I have found an issue with the route calculated by Kurviger
[DE] Ich glaube ich habe einen Fehler bei der Routenberechnung von Kurviger gefunden
If anyone ever wants to go to England by ferry via “Hoek van Holland”, that is currently not possible at all. A rather complex situation here. Kurviger
(With certain routers like OSRM foot and Kurviger foot you don’t even get properly routed on foot to the ferry)
A first obstacle for Kurviger is the barrier lift gate. I have briefly, without success, changed to Customers. Node: 8241716929 | OpenStreetMap
But because of too little osm edit experience with such complex roads composition I’m not going to edit any further here. Also after the control gates it does not run smoothly. The successive pieces of access road are not uniform in terms of edits. Someone can or wants to dissect this (remotely) ? It is a challenge.
Oh yes, right, a mistake of mine.
I was wrong about the current actual date.
That happens when you have time to spare as a pensioner.
The update datenbank in Kurviger is the one from 15/02
Wow that is one complex ferry terminal, looks super interesting
Your edits look correct, I just amended them with access to the gates further along the road as well.
Unfortunately, we’ll have to wait even for the day after tomorrow, since your (and my) edits were after 8:00 o’clock today, which seems to be the time when kurviger refreshes
Plane Deine Motorradtouren mit Kurviger. Kurviger bevorzugt kurvige Strecken, vermeidet Städte und Autobahnen. Finde die schönsten Strecken für deine Motorradtour.
And then we have the next problem that presents itself here: Kurviger
Kurviger routing is so rather critical, this in contrast to its brother (father) GraphHopper, which is more tolerant. Should OSM street always to be adjusted and this than in function of the Kurviger router? Questionable. @boldtrn Couldn’t Kurviger better be a bit more tolerant too?
Yes, we should be a bit more tolerant. And I do have plans for this. But this needs to be done in a way so that users can understand that it is not certain if a road can be used for sure. That is not that easy to do, so we will need more work in that area.
I really want to avoid situations where you plan a route and when riding it, you have to turn around because roads are closed.
You can always use the beeline to force Kurviger through a certain situation.
Hi Robin I certainly understand the dilemma you have. However, without that Hoek Van Holland adjustment with a DE starting point and destination GB Kurviger will probably not even give you a proposal that even comes close to that Ferry. The “beeline” solution helps you to bridge a short traject, but only if you manually have already forced your way there. And than you have to “shift” quite a bit with your Shaping or Via Points “pawns” before you can see and dedect the obstacle(s).
This is a very nice tool for the openstreet mappers “nerds” among us here. However, for most Kurviger motorcyclists (those who want to ride) this research work does not seem so obvious to me. I notice that if you want to go to the North, you cannot escape using Ferrys. Now many nice possibilities are so even not proposed by the Kurviger router. (imo)
Yes, I do agree with you, but I don’t think we should allow routing everywhere. Kurviger has already become less strict and I also plan to further improve this.
Overall however, I think it is good that Kurviger is strict with this and gets people to actually improve the data. Because, that is what we should do. The OSM data is constantly improved and if we all work together, it will become even better in the future. Having correct data is the only way to calculate correct routes, otherwise we can only calculate routes that might be correct.
So Robin, I have used this nice tool for a while. It is not about a few tens or hundreds of barriers to be changed, there are MANY more. When making the Hoek Van Holland gates change, I already got the (friendly) NL comment that this should not be necessary. But that this change even could limit the access for diverse routers. Although now correctly (remotely) is adapted and changed imo. Convince the OSM community, and this for the sake of Kurviger? I don’t think this desire to make so many edit changes is ever achievable.
Opinions on this differ. I do think access values of gates should be clarified. There is no default value for gates. Different tools assume different defaults.
Some people argue that access should be defined on the road. Others argue it should be the gate.
Just to clarify, Kurviger did not invent that access on gates can be tagged. Some members of the OSM community only think about mapping software and not route planning, so they don’t think this is important to tag the access. Access is tagged on gates for a long time.
I have used Kurviger to travel different parts of the world. I had to turn around at locked gates multiple times. I almost ran out of gas once in a national park because the planned route did not work out because of a locked gate. I had to replan a lot of routes because of locked gates. Assuming gates are accessible by default is not a good idea IMHO. I know other routers do that.
Strict routing rules are not applied for fun or to annoy people, they are in place to protect people.
This is especially important when you are automatically creating routes on side roads or backcountry roads like Kurviger. We can never guarantee that a road is accessible and safe, but we can try our best to create safe routes, that are still adventurous.
That said, I totally understand that there are quite some situations where the default gate access in Kurviger is annoying and I work towards improving that. The solution is definitely not to allow access to all gates.
