-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Factor in speeds for turn penalties #1735
Comments
We do have a turn penalty included in the https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/blob/develop/profiles/car.lua#L439-L447 But it does not take into account the current speed. You're right, a U-turn at the location above looks like a bad idea. We should probably think about factoring the speed values into the turn penalty for cases like this. |
You can also add exceptions for this case http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction I'm not sure about traffic laws in England but this definitely looks like it should not be allowed for general traffic. |
The England traffic laws permit u-turns anywhere except where explicitly restricted by signage. Just that most drivers would realise that it is too risky to consider under normal driving. I could add restrictions but then this is quite a universal thing for any near 180 degree turn from 70 mph to 70 mph speed limit, so worth considering as a system factor. |
e.g. from 52.673645,0.957841 to 52.672091,0.945735 (https://goo.gl/maps/7ufJJ2FC7tC2)
While legal to make a U-turn in the above instance, it would involve slowing from 70 mph to <5 mph to cross wide hatchings then accelerate back up to 70 mph. A rather dangerous thing to do, yet the chosen route above from the public web demo.
Does the route timing currently factor in the need to slow down to make such a sharp turn?
Should such high back angle turns on high speed road simply be avoided through a separate penalty or implicit restriction?
Yes, I could add a no U-turn restriction to OSM, but it is legally possible to do it as exemplified by the emergency services.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: