OsmAnd Wrong Bicycle Routing Against Oneway Streets In France
Navigating the intricate web of city streets on a bicycle requires a routing system that's not just efficient, but also safe and compliant with local laws. In France, a specific law allows cyclists to ride in both directions on streets with a speed limit of 30 km/h or lower, unless explicitly prohibited by local authorities. This has led to a complex situation for cycling navigation apps like OsmAnd, where the balance between legal permissiveness and practical safety is constantly tested. This article delves into the ongoing challenges of bicycle routing in France, focusing on the discrepancies between OsmAnd's routing logic and the consensus within the French OpenStreetMap community.
The French Law and Its Interpretations
Understanding the Law: In France, the law permits cyclists to travel in both directions on streets with a speed limit of 30 km/h or less. However, this isn't a blanket allowance. Local authorities can make exceptions, and they are required to signal these two-way streets with the M9v2 sign. The absence of this sign on a one-way street doesn't automatically imply that cycling in both directions is forbidden, but it does raise a question mark. The law is silent on situations where authorities fail to comply with signaling requirements, leaving a gray area regarding the legality of cycling against the flow of traffic on unsigned streets.
OsmAnd's Interpretation: Initially, OsmAnd adopted a broad interpretation of this law, considering all French streets with a speed limit of 30 km/h or less as permissible for two-way cycling unless explicitly signed otherwise. While this approach aimed for simplicity, it has resulted in numerous issues for cyclists using the app. Routes often direct cyclists against one-way traffic on roads where it is dangerous or legally dubious to do so. As a cyclist who uses OsmAnd regularly, many users have experienced firsthand the frustration of constantly checking routes and battling the routing algorithm to avoid potentially hazardous paths. This issue extends to larger streets with separately mapped lanes for each direction and even cycleways, where the app might guide cyclists against the intended flow of traffic.
The OpenStreetMap Community's Consensus: In contrast, the French OpenStreetMap community has reached a different consensus. They advocate for explicitly mapping bicycle two-way streets (oneway:bicycle=no) to avoid relying on a permissive rule that could lead to dangerous situations. Their approach focuses on mapping streets as two-way for cyclists only if there is at least one sign indicating such permission. This could include the official M9v2 sign, ground markings, or signs warning motorists of cyclists traveling in the opposite direction. This decision was made with bicycle routing algorithms in mind, aiming to prevent cyclists from encountering dangerous, conflicting, or legally problematic situations. Other routing services adhere to this approach, prioritizing safety over a strict interpretation of the law.
The Core Issue: Safety vs. Legal Permissiveness
The Dilemma: The heart of the problem lies in the conflict between a legally permissive interpretation and the practical safety of cyclists. While the law allows for two-way cycling on certain streets, the absence of clear signage or infrastructure can make such routes dangerous. OsmAnd's initial approach, while legally sound, often led cyclists into hazardous situations by routing them against one-way traffic on unsuitable roads. This is not just a matter of inconvenience; it's a matter of safety. Imagine being directed onto a busy one-way street with fast-moving traffic coming head-on – a scenario that many OsmAnd users have experienced.
The French OpenStreetMap Community's Solution: The French OpenStreetMap community's solution is to prioritize safety by explicitly mapping two-way cycling routes based on actual signage and infrastructure. This approach ensures that routing algorithms guide cyclists only where it is clearly safe and legal to cycle in both directions. By focusing on real-world conditions rather than theoretical permissions, this method offers a more reliable and secure routing experience.
The Call for Consistency: The discrepancy between OsmAnd's routing and the OpenStreetMap community's consensus highlights the need for consistency. Currently, one-way streets are mapped with oneway=yes, oneway:bicycle=no when appropriate, and rarely oneway:bicycle=yes. This mapping scheme reflects the community's effort to accurately represent cycling conditions on the ground. It's crucial for routing apps like OsmAnd to align with this mapping standard to ensure accurate and safe navigation for cyclists. By adopting the community's approach, OsmAnd can avoid leading cyclists into potentially dangerous situations and provide a routing experience that aligns with local knowledge and best practices.
Case Study: Rue Céline and the Broader Implications
A Concrete Example: A specific example illustrates the issue vividly. When computing a bike route between 48.750153/2.300037 and 48.752887/2.30043 in France, OsmAnd directs cyclists against the one-way Rue Céline. This is despite the fact that almost every other street in the vicinity is mapped as two-way for bikes. Other routing services, such as OSRM, GraphHopper, Valhalla, and cyclestreets.net, correctly circumvent this one-way street. This example underscores the inconsistency in OsmAnd's routing and its potential to lead cyclists into unsafe situations.
The Wider Problem: The Rue Céline case is not an isolated incident. It reflects a broader issue with OsmAnd's interpretation of the French cycling law and its implementation in the routing algorithm. The app's tendency to prioritize legal permissiveness over practical safety has resulted in numerous similar scenarios, where cyclists are directed against one-way traffic on roads where it is clearly inappropriate. This not only undermines the app's usability but also poses a significant safety risk to cyclists.
The Need for Change: To address this issue, OsmAnd needs to reconsider its approach to bicycle routing in France. Aligning with the French OpenStreetMap community's consensus would be a significant step in the right direction. By prioritizing real-world conditions and mapping two-way cycling routes based on actual signage and infrastructure, OsmAnd can provide a safer and more reliable routing experience for cyclists. This change would not only improve the app's accuracy but also enhance its reputation as a trusted navigation tool for cyclists.
Steps to Reproduce the Issue
How to Replicate the Problem: To demonstrate the issue, follow these steps within OsmAnd:
- Set the starting point to 48.750153/2.300037.
- Set the destination to 48.752887/2.30043.
- Select bicycle routing.
- Observe the route generated by OsmAnd.
Expected vs. Actual Result: The actual result is that OsmAnd directs cyclists against the one-way Rue Céline. The expected result is that the routing algorithm should circumvent this one-way street, as other routing services do. This discrepancy highlights the issue with OsmAnd's current routing logic in France.
The Importance of Testing: Reproducing this issue is crucial for understanding the problem and advocating for change. By demonstrating the inconsistency in OsmAnd's routing, users can help raise awareness and encourage the developers to address the issue. Testing and reporting such issues are essential for improving the accuracy and safety of bicycle routing apps.
Environment Details
Technical Specifications: The issue has been observed on the following environment:
- OsmAnd Version: 5.1.3
- Android version: 11
- Device model: Samsung Galaxy A20e
The Role of Environment: While the issue is primarily related to OsmAnd's routing algorithm and its interpretation of French cycling laws, providing environment details is important for troubleshooting and ensuring that the problem is not specific to certain devices or operating systems. By documenting the environment in which the issue occurs, users can help developers identify any potential compatibility issues or edge cases.
The Need for Comprehensive Testing: This information underscores the importance of comprehensive testing across different devices and operating systems. OsmAnd, like any complex software, needs to be tested in a variety of environments to ensure that it functions correctly for all users. Reporting environment details along with issue descriptions is a valuable contribution to this testing process.
A Call to Action: Aligning with the Community for Safer Cycling
The Key Takeaway: The recurring issue of OsmAnd routing cyclists against one-way traffic in France highlights the critical need for routing apps to prioritize safety and align with local community consensus. The French OpenStreetMap community has developed a robust mapping scheme that accurately reflects cycling conditions on the ground, and it's imperative that routing apps like OsmAnd adopt this approach.
The Path Forward: To ensure safer and more reliable bicycle routing in France, OsmAnd should:
- Align with the French OpenStreetMap community's mapping standards: This means prioritizing actual signage and infrastructure when mapping two-way cycling routes.
- Revise the routing algorithm: The algorithm should be updated to avoid directing cyclists against one-way traffic unless there is clear evidence that such routes are safe and legal.
- Prioritize user feedback: OsmAnd should actively solicit and incorporate feedback from cyclists to identify and address routing issues.
- Conduct comprehensive testing: Thorough testing across different devices and operating systems is essential to ensure that the app functions correctly for all users.
The Ultimate Goal: By taking these steps, OsmAnd can provide a routing experience that is not only legally compliant but also safe and practical for cyclists. This will enhance the app's usability and solidify its reputation as a trusted navigation tool for cyclists in France and beyond. Ultimately, the goal is to make cycling safer and more enjoyable for everyone, and accurate routing is a crucial component of that mission.