why is this OSM way being avoided when routing with LM car profiles

[Andrew Heard]

When using the web planner or LM4 route planner using any car profiles: the planners are routing via any OSM way to avoid this secondary road https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/615648056.

There's nothing special about the OSM tags:
highway=secondary
lanes=2
maxspeed=100
name=Tram Road
oneway=no
surface=chipseal

LM web planner with any car profile wrongly avoids the road: https://link.locusmap.app/r/afvn9c - watch the animation!

LM web planner with bike profile is OK: https://link.locusmap.app/r/py4dj4

brouter with road bike profile is OK: https://brouter.m11n.de/#map=12/-43.3832/172.5842/standard&lonlats=172.302704,-43.312773;172.636242,-43.407681&profile=fastbike

brouter with car profile is OK: https://brouter.m11n.de/#map=12/-43.3832/172.5842/standard&lonlats=172.302704,-43.312773;172.636242,-43.407681&profile=car-fast

Google Maps is OK: https://www.google.com.au/maps/dir/-43.3117991,172.3024609/-43.4084211,172.6426318/@-43.33639,172.2820699,11z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!4m1!3e0

I don't even live in this country but am interested what may be the issue so I can improve the situation. Any suggestions?

[lor74cas]

I believe that instead of only checking the accessibility values ��there is a filter on the name, just like I don't allow to pass "military road" so in your case it does not allow you to pass on "tram route"
https://forum.locusmap.eu/index.php?topic=8235.msg69978#msg69978

[Andrew Heard]

Thanks lor74cas. Wow - that's funny (frustrating) isn't it! Funny how bikes are allowed along tram tracks but not a car. I had to place a shaping point every 200m in order to keep the route on that road.

[freischneider]

I have from time to time also paths where according to the map are not accessible. Sometimes it is also wrong. But a change arrives too late at the router.
I always switch to manual here. I have it on long press on routing profile.
If I need turn-by-turn directions at this point, I make a via out of the shaping and give it an appropriate name. This is then announced.

i wish here. The route planner manually detects and automatically generates a turn-by-turn indication based on the angle.

[Andrew Heard]

I don't have any "tram" in (for example) car-fast.brf, so unsure where the router would be detecting the name of the road/ way & deciding a car cannot drive along a tram-track but OK if the cyclist gets caught in the tracks & has an accident ;-)

[Radim V]

Hi all, thanks for reporting this problem! There is of course no "tram"=no_go. The reason why this is happening is the less common surface=chipseal tag. (I think there is no significant occurrence of this surface in Europe, not even creators of the original brouter considered it). Also handling of defaults used to be less than ideal in the car profiles. Today I reviewed surface handling in all car profiles (Publicly visible are just 2 profiles). After new tiles are produced, the change will eventually make it to the public environment - after testing internally (By us).   

[Andrew Heard]

Thanks for the interesting info Radim. I was curious on the "chipseal" surface too. In New Zealand and Australia this is a very common surface for all main roads. It is cheaper to apply than bitumen. It is not in the predefined list, and although a large percentage of roads could be tagged with "chipseal" I don't know why the mapping person decided to use this name instead of something on the list ;-(

Any suggestions where in my own local (Poutnik) "car-fast.brf" & "car-eco.brf" I would fix this? Or should "chipseal" be replaced with say "paved"?

The online BRouter car-fast profile doesn't have a problem with "chipseal".