Hey guys,

Maybe the wrong place to post as it could be an OsmAnd routing problem. But just in case it’s an OSM problem:

Right here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-31.942/115.85185 Is an off ramp into a regular street. However when going from the off ramp I get routed onto the BUS lane rather than going straight through:

Green line is expected but it takes me along the red line, which is a right onto a different street, then left onto a bus lane then onto the road I want.

Thanks guys

  • RoToRa
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Ah, ok, got it now. I couldn’t zoom in enough on the map itself, I had to go into the editor.

    However that bus lane seems to be tagged correctly, so OsmAnd should never be routing over it. I tried it on my phone and it routed correctly.

    I can only suggest to post in a more official community such as Github Discussions. Try making a screen shot of OsmAnd actually routing along there. Also add following link to the bus lane: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/706585631

    • infeeeee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s not exactly correct tag, I mean not the most common, I haven’t found any documentation about motor_vehicle=bus. The preferred tagging should be motor_vehicle=no with bus=designated or psv=designated. These two combinations are more common than this one, it’s possible that osmand developers didn’t care about this rare tag.

      Also the small triangle shouldn’t exist, the bus road should end at the intersection of the other two roads.

      @beppi@sh.itjust.works So i not just osmand, the map isn’t perfect as well.

      • RoToRa
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I didn’t mention the non-standard tag, because it’s irrelevant. The tag access=no should be the most important one. That one alone should stop OsmAnd from routing through there. motor_vehicle=no isn’t really needed, because it’s already covered by access=no.