SA: route planner

[MdzOtt]

There are some unroutable segments out there and this has nothing to do with difficulty or danger. Some places in OpenStreet Map just can’t get routed through. There is a bike/pedestrian bridge over a highway where i live (and ride) and you just can’t do a route through it. I tried to check the OpenStreet map and edit it, but that segment has the correct attributes. Btw. it does not work for creating routes in SA, but also in Strava.

[trailcafe]

plotaroute.com is also based on OSM maps and routes anything without issues. Same for the Footpath app. Can someone explain, why there are differences in routing? For me it seems, that SA fails and the others can manage route creation in a better way. But I cannot explain it to me why this is the case.

[A Former User]

@trailcafe Indeed! yesterday i took some time to plan well known routes with SA and twice i ran into the same problem. komoot however worked without any problems. it is a pity for SA, just hope they will address this issue in the future

[Mff73]

@trailcafe
OSM is the source of data : points, path, tracks, etc… are created there, with attributes.
Then, there are map generations using these source of data, and each map generator (OSM itself for itself, or mapbox for others, or openandromap, etc…) are taking attributes and filter, tweak, to display the way they want/can.
Then it comes to routing, where same OSM data source is used by routing engines to follow what can be followed using routing profiles (sometimes one can see routed path on a “path” not displayed on the map itself )

Something in OSM not routable “at all”, and no routing engine will go through this.
But something routable, according to some profile criteria can be walked through but not cycle, etc…, and finally (maybe not complete explanation, just my own understanding) which optimisation or path choosing when multiple are possible, it is the magic inside each routing profiles/engines i think.

Then SA/Komoot/etc use all OSM raw data, have potentially their own mapping “provider”/“sources”, and also their “own” routing engine/profiles.

It may just explain the differences, not why SA is not the best at routing (according to users).

[trailcafe]

@Mff73 thank you very much. When I get it right, SA could improve its mapping because it’s using “its own” routing engine that could be tweaked to e.g. route all visible paths (or any other criteria).

[isazi]

@trailcafe not sure Suunto App is using its own routing, I believe they use the mapbox API.

[trailcafe]

I just went into OSM and checked the metadata of some paths:

1. and 2. picture is correctly routed by SA, 3. picture shows the path that SA ignores. I can’t see any differences in classification
   Link to area: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=17/47.57343/11.21559

The Mapbox API does not have any high sophisticated settings

https://docs.mapbox.com/api/navigation/directions/

[Mff73]

@trailcafe
Sometimes it is not the path itself which is faulty, but its non proper connexion with other paths. Just one point not linked and the path, properly setup, is a dead-end, and routing will avoid it.

[trailcafe]

@Mff73 Yes, and that is also understandable. But that does not apply here in this example.

[Mff73]

@trailcafe
strange, yes.
This path 3 is routable in other tools (with locus and brouter)

Just one thinking : this path 3 is connected to its both end to a path which is quoted “alpine hiking”
here

and here

so, if SA refuse to route Alpine Hiking paths (hypothesis), then this path 3 is never reachable in SA routing.
But indeed little strange

[trailcafe]

@Mff73 Damn, I’ve overseen that little part. Changed it to T3 which is still ok for classification. Environment changed and it got easier in this small part.