How to add initialcost for crossing a primary way where lanes=2?

[ProBackup-nl]

In my profile I would like to increase driver safety : that is prefer crossing a primary road with maxspeed=80 at places where lanes=1 or lanes=3.

Thus my idea is to add a penalty (read: extra cost) to crossing (not turning) such a highway=primary where lanes=2, in a way similar to how traffic lights or stop signs are handled in the example brouter profiles. The profile developers guide neither Poutnikl's brouter profile glossary give me a clue on how to do such.

How can add a cost to a (crossing) node based, not on properties of the way the route follows, instead on properties of the way being crossed (without adding explicit tags in OSM)?

[emvee-osm]

You found no examples because it is (currently) not possible.

Safety-wise I think crossings with a center island are to be preferred also that is not supported by brouter AFAIK and for sure the OSM data is incomplete or largely non-consisting. At the same time I think crossing of 80 km/h ways are that far apart that it is typically not worth it to make a detour.

[ProBackup-nl]

My detours are > 1 kilometer for not having to cross primary roads at positions without center islands. For velomobiles these crossings are extra unsafe:

1. bad sight (due to low and deep (legs in front of you) seating position), even worse when the road that needs to be crossed has trees or hedges, or is positioned at a slight increased altitude
2. long vehicle (takes more time to free the road)
3. slow acceleration from 0 (because of the high vehicle mass, f.e. 30 kgs vs 11 for a racebike)

[ProBackup-nl]

@emvee-osm I prefer my velomobile route like this:

https://bikerouter.de/#map=15/51.5886/5.7636/CyclOSM,Smoothness,route-quality&lonlats=5.766777,51.585071;5.763059,51.586357;5.754132,51.591417&profile=vm-forum-velomobil-touristisch

And not the 1476-1434=42 meter shorter route with 107 less turning costs:

https://bikerouter.de/#map=15/51.5886/5.7636/CyclOSM,Smoothness,route-quality&lonlats=5.766777,51.585071;5.754132,51.591417&profile=vm-forum-velomobil-touristisch

Or does brouter have another concept to improve this velomobile routing that prefer crossing a highway=primary road at a position where the way its driving on has oneway=yes?

[emvee-osm]

I prefer my velomobile route like this

Prefect to give the link to the preferred route over the chosen route but please also give a reason why, things can be optimized but if it is not done the right way it will bite you on other routes.

One observation is that the "standard" Trekking profile takes by default your preferred route.

I did review the OSM data and found some problems/inconsistencies and fixed those. AFAIK every 24 hours the brouter data is updated so let's see if that makes a difference tomorrow.

does brouter have another concept to improve this velomobile routing that prefer crossing a highway=primary road at a position where the way its driving on has oneway=yes?

No, at this moment there is no information on crossing ways at crossing nodes available in the brouter profile although I can see how that might be handy.

Side-remark: It is stupid these side roads are 80 km/h. Unlike the N277 which is administered by the Province, these side roads are administered by the municipality of Gemert-Bakel. The side roads are all 60 km/h zones so it would be a matter of moving these sign closer to the N277 and done.

[ProBackup-nl]

Prefect to give the link to the preferred route over the chosen route but please also give a reason why, things can be optimized but if it is not done the right way it will bite you on other routes.

The road designer already designed the N277 road exits to all these small streets with a small tactile discomfort: a paving between sett or cobblestone. Its only the Keizersberg exit that has excellent flat asfalt, 3-lanes on the main road, and refuges for the unclassified roads.

The main reason why I don't want to cross the N277 at the sett/cobblestone paved exits is the high frequency of accidents that occur there.

One observation is that the "standard" Trekking profile takes by default your preferred route.

That is because the Trekking profile assigns a lower cost to the left/west side parallel road then to the right/east side because that left/west parallel road is also a cycling_route.

The VM-touri profile equals the left side to the ride/east side parallel road: left lowest cost because cycle road / right lowest cost because its concrete with excellent surface.

Except from my preference to prefer a crossing where lanes=1 or 3, the reality is that taking the north crossing requires a full stop and an angle to watch behind the row of trees on the left (east) side. Taking the Keizersberg crossing the velomobile can approach at a 90 degree angle compared to the N277 direction and most of the times the velomobile can keep rolling. In case of an incorrect approaching vehicle speed assessment, there is the possibility to make quite a safe stop in the middle lane.

[emvee-osm]

Not sure if you realized yourself but the reason given ("main reason", angle of watching, trees etc.) are things that are not mapped in OSM. Accident frequency will likely be never mapped in OSM, tree's can but will not end up in the brouter data and watch angle will be tricky.

Still you could use class:bicycle, lookups.dat has already support for it but only in way context while I think you would like to use it here in node context for the crossing node.

The VM-touri profile equals the left side to the ride/east side parallel road: left lowest cost because cycle road / right lowest cost because its concrete with excellent surface.

The $/km for the left side is 1313, that of the right side is weighted effective 1298 $/km so lower, paving_stones/concrete is 1313 $/km and asphalt 1000 $/km, that does not seems that logical to me.

[ProBackup-nl]

I know that my reasons are not mapped. That is the reason why there is this request to assing initialcost when crossing a primary road where lanes=2 and maxspeed=80.

The route above is just an example. Also other primary roads I don't want to cross at crossings where lanes=2 and maxspeed=80.