Tagging a permanently closed ferry so CT avoids it?

The ferry across the Potomac River outside of Leesburg, Va. used to be a fun and useful way for cyclists to cross the river, but it has been closed for 3 years and there is no chance it'll reopen anytime soon, as there is a longstanding dispute between the owners of the land on either side of the river. Despite being tagged on OSM as "closed" for hours and "no" for all access types (cars, bikes, horses, pedestrians) it continues to be used by the routing software. Getting to this point on the Virginia side is not without a very bad traffic hazard, so it would be best to get the software to understand that the Ferry is gone. However, the OSM team won't allow that change, for some reason. Rourint systems on OSM itself avoid it, but bicycle.travel still uses it. Maybe because it's tagged as part of a bike route? Or maybe it doesn't have the up to date tags on access?

https://cycle.travel/map/journey/475777

OSM tagging for "pavement" that's so bad it's ill advised?

I guess I'm just full of questions today.

Again, looking at routes near me, on surfaces with which I'm deeply familiar through a decade of running and cycling: There are "paved" cycleways near me that are so old and neglected that that they're far more hazardous than nearby roadways (and far less pleasant as well). I'm wondering what the appropriate OSM tag is for these in order for c.t to consider them fairly as routing options.

In the particular case I'm thinking of, the pavement is crossed by root-bursts that are as large as roadside curbs, and large areas of deep mud from prevalent flooding events. (The latter are never cleared in some areas, at least not in the 13 years I've been using those paths to run and cycle.) The best alternative route is a nearby road which is actually wide, newly paved, and striped for cyclists most of the way. But c.t will consistently pick the separate path because the tagging makes it seem better.

Musings on "pavement vs gravel", steps, tolerance field?

As mentioned in prior posts, I love the routes this site suggests. I wish I could cycle on them more!

This summer when I was stuck at home by myself, I used a couple of suggested routes that were great, but they brought up some of the minor limitations in the software for routing and it got me thinking.

For one of the routes, if you chose "pavement" only, you got a crummier routing, because the main (cycle path) route you'd probably otherwise choose has brief sections of gravel. (As in 50 to 60 meters worth.) However, if you switch to allow gravel, you got a lot more gravel, some of which is pretty unpleasant unless you're riding a real, suspended mountain bike.

The above situation had me wishing the "gravel OK" setting had some kind of quick tolerance preset, or max distance. (I realize that after the fact, gravel vs. tarmac vs. hike-a-bike is broken out, which is very good indeed.) But being able to say up front that you're fine with a couple km of gravel (what's the worst that could happen? you walk!) vs. routing gravel-tolerant and seeing 10s of km of it, I think that would be a win. Of course it *sounds* simple to me because I don't know anything about the programming or compute overhead it would require to execute, but I thought I'd throw it out. (Doubt I'm the first to suggest.)

Along similar lines, stairs.

The suggested routes I reference above, one was a multi-use path that terminated in a short flight of stairs. (About 20). These were not indicated in OSM. I actually recently corrected OSM at this point to reflect reality. Now, there's *also* a dirt path alongside the steps, not great, but an OK alternative for people who want to try to push their bike rather than carry it up or down the stairs. Again, wondering if it's possible to get a "pavement" route that's tolerant of a certain (user-defineable?) amount of this rather than throwing it out entirely.

Does c.t use OSM shoulder width in routing decisions?

I am cleaning up more roads I use on OSM with better information, and there's a particular stretch of highway that is used by all routing systems out there because it's the most direct route. However, it's a very high-volume road during cycling season and the shoulder all but disappears for long stretches. This wouldn't seem to matter but most of the traffic there is traveling at high speed AND towing large trailers (boats or campers). It's so bad I refused to cycle it on a tour, and to give you an idea of my cycling risk tolerance, I used to commute in and out of the South side of Chicago, Illinois, entirely on surface streets!

The problem here is mainly that the shoulder disappears. There may be alternate, lower-traffic, (longer) and more scenic options.

I'm wondering how c.t guesses traffic volume (if at all) and weighs that against shoulder tags (not that common, so maybe never?) so that I can sort of maximize my OSM editing for the best benefit of cyclists using these kinds of tools.

Of course the best solution would be the state just paves the rest of this highway shoulder! (Odd they haven't. They have wonderful, 3m wide shoulders on much lower volume roads near us. Those are cycling paradise.)

best way to tag openstreetmap path so the router avoids it?

I love this site for routes. I got some great ones during a recent trip to portugal. However, one day the engine routed me along a gravel road that then turned into a logging road (nearly impassible except by fully suspended mountain bike) which then turned into what can be best described as a very difficult hiking trail, impassible by any wheeled vehicle except perhaps the most expert downhill mountain biker. There was about a mile of 20%-ish grade, very loose rock and ruts, difficult to walk, let alone walk the bike down (my only choice at that point.)

Clearly this is the result of innaccurate labeling in openstreetmap (it was marked the entire way as a typical gravel road turning into a "landtrack" which was accurate until it was not...). I edit OSM pretty often, so I isolated those really bad sections and tagged them with IMBA difficulty ratings and changed their surfaces to try to reflect reality. However, I worry that even that won't stop the routing engine from putting another cyclist on this route, and frankly, this was a physical hazard that no one should have to face on a bike unless they are really seeking a gnarly downhill challenge. What OSM tags / conditions will eliminate a section of road from the gravel routing options? There were slightly less direct, alternate gravel roads that would have been just fine, but in this hilly terrain (also riddled with large, loose dogs you wouldn't want to encounter a second time), backtracking to get to one was not a good option -- and impossible if you'd begun that overly rocky and steep descent I'm describing.