Kurviger.de | Application | Blog | Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Legal Notice | Privacy Policy

Routing heading

Here is a similar route example with heading=270. Same route?

From GraphHopper documentation:
“Headings are given as north based clockwise angle between 0 and 360 degree.”

If you move the destination below the river, then the “heading” seems to produce different routes.

(however this must be discussed with @boldtrn)

I would say heading of route=90 in your (and my) example! Yes, both routes are the same.
But heading of vehicle=270 in the screenshot.

The heading=270 in that example is meant to

1 Like

Here are other examples where “heading” works:

I can’t see anything wrong with these examples?

If you switch to curvaturefastest the heading is used: https://kurv.gr/dHmh4

If the detour is too long/troublesome, the routing engine will choose a different direction. The detour is using a lot of cities, and cities are avoided.

In first example the routing does not respect the heading direction parameter.
(while road can be driven from there too - if move the destination like below)

We cannot expect from users while driving to try other route options,
in order for the heading direction to be used in the routing response.

So it seems that the heading direction has small priority in Kurviger routing.
And is not reliable in navigation, where drivers expect it to work every time.

It is not designed to force a direction. It is meant to favour a direction.

In the example above I would rather turn around instead of riding through the city. The curvy route is designed to be an enjoyable route. So the result is OK IMHO.

Agreed, this makes sense when planning routes.

However, while driving and requesting rerouting, users expect the new route to be in front of them.
(that is why the complaints were made, the new route is in the opposite lane without U-turn)

1 Like

The issue In the above exampe is, that the routing engine neither makes a u-turn nor does it find a route in direction of vehicle.

From a user perspective it sometimes would be desirable to find a new route in direction of vehicle heading earlier than kurviger actually does.
The user may have a reason not to follow the original route. (maybe because it is blocked)

It is possible to create a larger influence of the heading on the routing. However, I am not yet 100% convinced we should do that.

This can lead to significant and potentially frustrating detours, often unintentional.

Unfortunately, we currently don’t have the option to provide nice u-turn announcements where we search for a good intersection to turn around.

So if we enforce the heading in the above example the route would lead through Hohenkammern and Allershausen, instead of turning around and following the side road with almost no cities.

This example is certainly arguable, so the detour is not too bad either and in a large group I might rather take the detour than turning around. If you slightly move the start or destination then the detour is chosen.

Enforcing the heading in a different example, for example here in the alps, driving to the west, would lead to a 100km detour. In the alps there are thousands of such cases where the routing would end up using huge detours. So enforcing the heading is no option.

Slightly increasing the impact of the heading is something we can discuss about and we should think about how much detour we would like to accept. 5min? 10min? 7km? 50km?

With a motorcycle turning around is fast and easy and you don’t need a lot of space. So this is different to truck routing where turning around is no option.