On this page weird and sub-optimal routes are gathered. Having a list of these routes will hopefully lead to better route calculation weightings, OSM data fixes or the discovery of bugs in the routing algorithm.
- If you add a route please do so with the shortest possible route that identifies the problem.
- There are two categories:
- Generic routing problems using the mapnik or cycle layer.
- Cycleroute specific problems for problems with the cycle networks layer only.
- You can leave the 'cause' and 'solution' fields empty if appropriate.
There's no need to add more weird routes as there are enough reports to provide work on the route planner for quite some time to come. Thanks for all the reports!
|Routing does not seem to work for Iquitos||Return value: 0|
|fixed||Route against oneway on roundabout||Gosmore does not recognizes 'true' values||Added support for 'true' values in Gosmore|
|pending||No routing over car park||Areas like amenity=parking are not routable||Add a routing rule to Gosmore to allow routing using areas
|fixed||Routing against oneway on cycleway||Probably no Gosmore rule for oneway/cycleways combo||Add a routing rule to Gosmore for oneway/cycleways combo|
|fixed||Routing against oneway on cycleway||Probably no Gosmore rule for oneway/cycleways combo
Seems to also route bicycles the wrong way up oneway streets. Stevek 09:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
|Add a routing rule to Gosmore for oneway/cycleways combo
Add routing rule to obey oneway for bicycles except when cycleway=opposite. Stevek 09:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
|refusing to route over cyclebridge that works for bikes and has foot=yes?||For some reason it doesn't like that portion of cycleway, it never selects the cycleway as part of the route even if you are starting west of the bridge and heading west. See  Is it related to the fact it is a NCN relation? Mungewell|
|fixed||Does not take the obvious route||According to Map Features motorway_link roads are not oneway by default. Gosmore thinks otherwise.
||Removed default oneway="1" rule from elemstyles.xml|
|fixed||Routing engine does not want to use the bridge to go onto the highway. Instead it takes a 25km detour.||Need to add oneway=no to the way connecting to South West end of the bridge.|
|fixed||Ignoring a UK_public_rights_of_way#Byway open to all traffic as a potential route for cyclists or motor vehicles (flip the example to motorcar for a different, non-BOAT route).||Routing engine does not seem to have highway=byway configured into it as a routeable way for any traffic. --achadwick 14:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)||Added byway to Gosmore's list of highways. So this is hopefully fixed in the next database update.|
|fixed||YOURS crashes with the error message "Status: An unexpected error occured in Gosmore: " and does not render a route.||Potentially related to the example above? Note that this way has an explicit bicycle=yes. --achadwick 14:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)||Added byway to Gosmore's list of highways. So this is hopefully fixed in the next database update.|
|fixed||Route does not want to use byway. Welshie||Byway is not a feature that Gosmore recognises.
highway=byway with surface=paved, or tracktype=grade1 would be suitable for a normal car route also. Usually byways would not though. Possibly a new issue. Ben 16:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
|Added byway to Gosmore's list of highways. So this is hopefully fixed in the next database update.|
|fixed||Gosmore doesn't want to use pedestrian bridge --Zorko 15:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)||Gosmore currently does not allow pedestrians on trunk_link roads. Shouldn't the bridge be tagged as highway=footway instead of pedestrian?||Tagging changed.|
|new||Area's should be crossed in a straigt line, not allong the borders... (Does a permalink work for the shortest way?) GercoKees 06:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)||Gosmore doesn't support crossing areas like this. Andrewpmk 08:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
|new||Route is sub-optimal. Result should be this one. Without the two points to aid it, Google routes M4->M5->M42. Chriscf 21:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)||Probably a data problem, but can't identify the specifics as is.
|fixed (in test version)||Route Hamburg to Bagdad. The first part of the route from Hamburg is missing. Anyway. Google can't caculcate that at all!||Gosmore quits prematurely while calculating the route. This is no data error.||Fix Gosmore behavior for long routes.|
|new||Route Edinburgh->Alnwick should start from Edinburgh but starts from just outside Lauder instead (about 40km away)||Gosmore cannot find a complete route.||Change Gosmore's code to allow a larger area to be searched for a possible route (at the expense of slower route calculation).|
|solved||Route Hamburg to Kapstadt (Cap Towm). It starts somewhere in the nowhere in africa and goes to Cape Town.||May have something to do with a distinct lack of data. Chriscf 11:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)||Add and/or fix more data in Africa.|
|new||From Hamburg to 'Neustift im Stubaital' by bike is about 300 km shorter than by car.|
|new||From Hamburg to 'Neustift im Stubaital' by foot is about 300 km shorter than by car.|
|fixed||Cannot save the route to gpx because the request uri is too large. Smsm1 08:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)|
|pending||Unwanted u-turns from and onto single carriageway road access ramps||Every ramp on a single carriageway road requires a (possibly non signposted) turn restriction from the "wrong" direction. Reversing the route shows an obeyed no-u-turn relation.||Add a hefty penalty for turns of almost 180 degrees?
Interesting idea, but how to tag the case where a 180 degree turn is allowed ?
Gosmore will work on the B455 if you tag it restriction=no_u_turn or with restriction=only_straight_on. -- Nic 21:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC) For someone tagging such a restriction, it is hard to decide if the situation is a no_u_turn or a no_left_turn. In the description of the restriction it is written that a routing engine should only look for "no_" or "only_" in the restriction tag. Why does Gosmore handle no_left_turn differently than a no_u_turn? This does not make sense to me as the restriction is clearly defined through from/via/to and the "no_" restriction. --RalfZ 23:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
|pending||Taking the wrong (shorter way) primary_link to enter the B455 road. Then makes a U-turn on the primary road.||Routing engine assumes that you can just make a U-turn on a primary road. Routing engine also not observing the relation set at this point to disallow this u-turn. RalfZ|
|||Routing contrary to a Relation:restriction. This one does have all the necessary members. In reality, this is a 7-lane tidal flow single carriageway, so it's a brave individual that attempts this manoeuvre. Chriscf 13:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)||Gosmore considers (so I've read) a no_right_turn to mean only turns of 45 to 135 degrees. For right hand traffic countries a no_left_turn should often imply a no_u_turn, also (by legal definitions), and for left hand drive a no_right_turn likewise? That'd be a problem, or two relations for most no_right/left_turn cases, which many are going to forget to enter.||Try restriction=no_u_turn or restriction=only_straight_on -- Nic 22:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)|
|new||Excessively long way when a short dismounted stretch on foot is better for the average user.||The problem way is way 23004483, which is tagged access=private/foot=permissive. This in theory allows a bike rider to get off and push for a few metres, saving a few Km of riding, but Gosmore seems to be a bit obsessed about pruning access=no branches: it should consider modes of transport :) In general, cyclists would be OK with dismounting for short distances if the win is big, less so if the dismounts are frequent and the gains not great.||This combination of tags is too difficult to process by Gosmore. Probably needs fixing by Gosmore's author.|
Please edit your route to show the problem with the shortest route possible (as requested on the top of this page). -- Updated. See the first few hundred meters there we are on a track which even has the tag motorcar=no.
|Routing for cars over tracks||Gosmore considers tracks as legal ways for cars. I suggest to assume the default tag motorcar=no for tracks. Rainer Dorsch 12:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
||Tracks can be navigated by cars in many countries so motorcar=no is not an option, I suggest to add access=* restrictions where applicable. I have lowered the average speed on cars so the routing will use it less often. --Lambertus 14:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Accessing a track by bicycles/foot is perfectly legal, only motorvehicles are prohibited. I thought motorcar=no is the tag for these cases (?). If that is the case I think at least for Germany (probably also Austria and Switzerland) assuming motorcar=no is a good assumption for highway=track (if not specified otherwise) Rainer Dorsch 14:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
|||Should have chosen the ferry across the fjord, which will take 25minutes, instead a detour around the fjord which will take hours is chosen. Bernt 14:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)||The average speed of the ferry link is probably too low (3km/h)||Average speed set to 10km/h.|
|new Please use the shortest possible route next time.||Route AND_nosr_r=15184978 has a barrier: motorcars=no. Gosmore leads a car through this barrier. --Hugo H 20:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)||Gosmore does not treat a node with motorcar = no as something it can't route.|
|new||Route Danziger Str., Ellerbek to Burgwedelkamp, Hamburg. The provided route recommends to drive through a barrier in the street Moordamm (near crossing Moordamm / Königsberger Straße, Ellerbeker Moordamm).||Gosmore should not provide a route through a that can not be passed due to a barrier (node with barrier=gate).
|fixed||Suboptimal micro level routing for a pedestrian. Sidewalks drawn as footways should be preferred to the parallel road.||Same cost used for walking along residentials and footways.||Something has been changed.|
|new||Ferry does not connect in Calais? I haven't checked the OSM data yet, but I will.|
|new new||highway=primary_link & highway=trunk_link ignored?|
|new||cycle routing against oneway on highway=residential, and also on highway=pedestrian|
|new||cycle routing on footpath||Pushing your bike on foot is allowed and in this case presumed faster than a detour, since trunk roads are not considered suitable for cycling, for now.
|fixed||Routing refuses to take morway, might be a dataerror...||Found it! GercoKees 20:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)|
|new||foot routing does not include highway=path; foot=designated; bicycle=designated|
|new||Does not take the obvious route.||The algorithm uses road sections of the type highway=primary_link because it understands that this is the shortest way.||The logical choice is to continue on the road without "strange" dodge, concatenating lanes of acceleration or deceleration in a few meters if there is another alternative. Probably giving a major resistance to the movement for this type of routes? Or maybe discriminating these complex routes by others more simple calculating the sinuosity index of each one of them? --Tony Rotondas 15:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)|
|fixed||Walking route (Edinburgh->Musselburgh) stops after 2.4km - should end at destination and be around 10km. Cycle route works ok.||Appears to be fixed now|
|new||Car Route stops after a few meter, should be 36 km||gosmore routing engine problem (Jump-Error)
|new||2. Car Route stops after a few meter, should be 14 km||gosmore routing engine problem (Jump-Error)|
|new||3. Car Route stops after a few meter, should be 5 km||gosmore routing engine problem (Jump-Error)|
|new||Route stops early, reverse works|
|as above||Route stops early, reverse works. Moving the from just a bit closer to destination works.|
|new||I don't know why it routes through the (longer) service road instead of the main road. Is it because of the sharp turn? It's not that sharp in real life.||The problem is caused by misinterpreting the bicycle=designated tag||This cannot be fixed in elemstyles.xml. I suggest to remove the designated tag, as it seems a bit silly here.|
|new||An over 10 km detour on on a 4 km route, regardless of transport mode or fastest/shortest. Moving either endpoint closer chooses the straight route.|
|Not really a route problem, but a user interface problem, so possibly this is the wrong place to report it (where else?). In "from" field entering "newcastle" selects Newcastle in Australia for a route search, rather than the one in the UK. There should be some way of choosing from the various "Newcastle"s, preferably sorted by proximity to the source IP eg. for an Australian user, "newcastle" would default to Newcastle in Australia, for someone in the UK it would default to Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the UK. Even trying to force a UK route by using the full name "newcastle-upon-tyne" to "hexham" results in a route through Australia!|
|New||Not a routing problem but when I set the lat, long and zoom to get the view I want (in Suffolk,UK) it shows it for a moment and then always jumps to show some route for a place called Sneek in Holland.PeterIto 22:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)||This happens when a route calculation is requested without any lat/lon parameters. I'm not sure what you are doing to trigger this behaviour. --Lambertus 10:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)|
|new||Routing from pier-to-pier over the ferry route works as expected, but when endpoints are moved a short ways up the connecting roads, it goes wonky. --Cohort 00:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)|
|new||Routing engine uses a road tagged surface=unpaved instead of paved roads.
--Farlokko 13:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
|new||yours expects teleportation around ferries? Depending on the start point position, when the route goes over a ferry, only the ferry route and the final part of the route is shown. Much of the beginning part of the route is just missing - incomplete. Moving the start point closer to the ferry, the route is shown closer to what it should be better (marks the entire segment)|
|new||Middle of route changes when end moves farther away. Begin and end of the route stay the same. See this to compare. Both routes use the same ways at their begin and end, but in the middle, a different way is chosen.|
|new||Route is not taking the flyover (marked as highway=trunk_link) but instead takes the bottom route through the intersection which the flyover is meant to bypass.||It seems that the router prefers the combination of highway=primary and highway=trunk over a shorter highway=trunk_link route.
||Tweak the average speeds and/or add penalties for sharp turns.|
|new||Depending on the placement of both the start and end point, it chooses to add large additional chunks to the route. A diagram can be seen here. 1 is correct, but the final destination has to be moved short of target to do so. 2 has the target almost correct, but an addition stroll over a golf corse seems to have been added. 3. has start and finish in the correct place, and takes a long de tore. It in fact misses a longer route than needed, and takes a yet longer route than needed. 4. has the correct location, but the start point is moved closure, and it takes the correct route. The points at which it goes wrong are not at any divisions between separate ways, and nothing links to/from the way as far as I can tell. The data seems correct on inspection, and also this route works fine on openrouteservice.org. Ben 18:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)|
|new||Route is going straight instead of taking the U-turn to the north.||router is ignoring nodes tagged with barrier=block and possibly any barrier=*||router should consider that nodes tagged with barrier=* as access=no by default.|
|answered||Route ignores new slip road from south to west, exiting A404 and joining M40. Route also ignores new slip road from east to south, exiting M40 and joining A404.||The route using the trunk road has a higher average speed according to Gosmore because it has mostly trunk and motorway and the slipway is all motorway_link. Are there any traffic lights that are not mapped yet?
||Finetune the average speeds, or implement better average speed tags/algo's.
|new new new||only_straight_on -restrictions are ignored|
|new||"Fast" route is slower and less direct than the Short route in reality. Kinks N at George Street, and S at Botley Road down slow cycle tracks; wastes time at traffic lights and junctions.||Excessive weight appears to be given to cycleways in this case. At the George Street bit, Gosmore has a choice of a short direct route with no cycle link, or a convoluted one involving two very stretches of cycleway. It chooses the latter.
The Botley Road setup is more excusable :) Botley Road in that direction is a mess of on-road bus lanes which bikes can use and off-road parallel tracks shared with pedestrians. I don't think it's fully tagged up, so ignore. --achadwick 10:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
|new||routing against oneway direction - the street 1 decembrie 1918 is part of the route, no matter the direction|
|new||Takes a 100 km detour to avoid a motorway_link. Uses it only if given no other choice, as in 1
|Open||YOURS takes a long detour here. Changing the destination just a few meters to the south (on the same cycleway!)  the route becomes 2.5km shorter. The cycleway is correctly mapped as is it used for routing here: ||Now the route is even worse than before. But the cause is clearer: gosmore seems to consider the highway=secondary faster than the highway=cycleway which is usually wrong.|
|suboptimal||Leaving the cycle network leads to going up a steep hill. Route via the cycle network would be about 1.9 km vs. 1.6 for the hilly one chosen.||No knowledge of the effective hindrance of an incline.|
|new||yours makes a giant U-turn just above Amsterdam. Moving startingpoint along the route, yours comes up with a different (shorter) route, here and the u-turn dissapears. However, both routes use the Houtman kade for starters... GercoKees 11:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)|
|general issue||Why does YOURS ignore one way streets for bicycle routing? At least here in Canada, it is illegal to go the wrong way on a one way street on a bicycle (unless there is a contraflow bike lane). Andrewpmk 06:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)|
|new||YOURS using wormholes to Antarctica and back. --Spartanischer Esel 01:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)|