i’ve just noticed, that there are 2 mistakes in the routing app.
It is not possible, to route from Lysebotn to E9 near Rysstad. You can’t choose the roads FV 500, FV 986, FV 975, FV 987 and FV 337. This roads are usable.
Error message is: A waypoint is to far from a street. If there should be street, let us know through the forum, otherwise place the point somewhere else.
the road starting at 58.440987,6.612117 ends at 58.435413,6.610851. This is the so called Tronåsveien. And it doesn’t ends there. It prolongues above the hill to Sira (58.428912,6.629514 to 58.413588,6.654303)
The part between 58.435413,6.610851 and 58.428912,6.629514 is missing. But the road is definitely drivable from 58.435402,6.610637 to 58.428912,6.6295147.
when you find issues like that it’s really important that you also provide a kurviger link that demonstrates the problem. This makes it infinitely easier for us to help out
That being said, let’s see what we can find:
This seems to be because of this road:
The editor noted:
Closed between 1st of November and first weekend after 17th of May every year. The road goes through a protected area for reindeers.
So the access is currently set to “no” and Kurviger will obey that and not drive there. The gate on the other side seems to be implemented better, with a conditional: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/303398800
I don’t know by heart how Kurviger currently handles conditional access, @boldtrn is currently implementing some stuff (see also discussion here), but I think it would work if the road I mentioned above gets corrected. Seeing that it is after May 17th now, you could go ahead and remove it, or even better: add a conditional from november to May
What is the problem you see? Please provide a link
If you switch over the map layer (use the button at the very top right) to OpenStreetMap, you will see that the road does indeed continue there. Some map providers have better or worse data, depending where you are The algorithm itself, used to calculate your route, uses the OpenStreetMap data behind the curtain, so it would drive up there, if the road wasn’t blocked/closed. And surprise surprise, this is again what we see, there is an improper gate there:
Now Gandalf, it is AMAZING that we have you, somebody with local knowledge of Norway, here in the forum. Do you happen to know OpenStreetMap? It’s like Wikipedia for maps and we could really use your help here. If you have local knowledge and can help improve the map data (especially for this beautiful country), I think lots of motorcycle drivers would love you eternally for that. Also, your own navigation (kurviger) will pick up the changes once the servers refresh (in about 1 week) and you’ll automatically have a better application. So yeah, if you’re in the mood, go ahead and make an account. If you have any questions about editing you can ask them here or in the OSM forum
The issue is not the conditional access, but someone also placed a hard access=no on the road, for example here:
Kurviger obeys these hard access restrictions. The additional conditional restrictions in this case don’t state when access would be allowed, they just define an additional no. So two no’s will result in no in all cases .
IMHO it’s prefered in these cases to tag roads with:
AFAIK there is no strict guideline though, but that’s best for routers IMHO.
That’s what I meant, the road is really erroneous, access=no and only conditionals in the comments. The gate on the other side has a conditional with a date, and the question was whether Kurviger would be tripped up by that additionally, after the road is fixed
That’s good to know, and I also agree that we should go with