Using cycle.travel and the "gravel" option creates a route for me that goes through a ford that is marked on OpenstreetMap as "impassable". See https://cycle.travel/map/journey/447716
The ford is part of a route that is a bridleway. https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=52.857812%7E-1.265846&lvl=17.1&style=s shows the bridleway with the ford to the NE of the marked bridleway.
Openstreetmap did have the ford marked as impassable but Komoot have recently addressed the problem (their software also routes through the ford) by removing the bridleway and the ford from Openstreetmap (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/137460892) - this was only 2 days ago so I guess cycle.travel is using a slightly old version of OSM.
Removing a ford that is impassable from the OSM map doesn't seem like the right solution. Instead the routing software should note the "impassable" setting and avoid using the route. Doing as the OSM change made has done regrades the OSM map - it is a bridleway even if overgrown or deep water.
Should cycle.travel deal with impassable fords? Can it be enhanced to do so? Is that the right solution?
Ian
Comments
ford=impassable (as it was previously tagged) isn’t a valid OSM tag – cycle.travel won’t understand that and I suspect no other software will. “Impassable” is a difficult concept for OSM as it can be a subjective judgement.
Better to tag the actual depth of the ford, I think. As a first step I’ve just tweaked the code such that it’ll refuse to route through anything deeper than 0.3m. cycle.travel takes an update from OSM roughly every month so it’ll be live with the next update.
The traditional way of tagging something that in theory is a bridleway, but is in practice non-existent, is just to map designation=public_bridleway but with no highway= tag – that might be a good solution here.