Hi, I’m touring in Bosnia at the moment which conveniently allows me to make changes on inconsistencies. I’ve done a couple but this one has me stumped on what to do. While creating a route to ride from Sarajevo to Zenica I could not get RWGPS to route from r-445 secondary to m-17 trunk. It’s allowed in Bosnia. But it acts like the roads don’t even intersect. I’m looking for suggestion on how to change the intersection. This point is after A1 is finished. The toll booth is just to the east. Here’s the point. OpenStreetMap Thanks Dan
I would guess this is largely due to the tag motorroad=yes on M-17, which normally implies access is restricted to motor vehicles. It has been tagged like that since about 5 years ago. So I suppose the question is, why was that added? Does it represent signage on the ground?
Note that some routers may avoid trunk roads even in the absence of that tag, but in this case all three routing engines on openstreetmap.org, plus BRouter, avoid the M-17. So it’s a fairly general thing, not a quirk of whichever routing engine RWGPS is using. And it’s about the road as a whole, not the junction specifically.
Partially answering my own question, this Mapillary image shows that there was indeed a motorroad sign in 2018.
Do you think the situation has changed since then, or you have a different interpretation of the sign?
Hi Alan,
Well Rwgps heat signature shows bikes. And I did. And Bosnia is not shy about putting crosses with bikes when they don’t want them. I ran across one the same day at a tunnel entrance.
I could change that portion to a primary road. Only a half K or so there’s an exit to a lovely side road with nice views. Probably the old highway. That takes you all the way to town.
I’m more confused by how it shows on OSM. The road borders are closed and the secondary simply loops on itself. That’s why I thought RWGPS wouldn’t connect no matter how much I tried to force it. If you can’t do this route you6r pretty much screwed with a bike. It’s many kilometers around. The closest on a bad gravel road
That tells us that cyclists use the road, it doesn’t tell us for sure whether they are doing so legally.
Doesn’t the motorroad sign have the same effect though? (I’m genuinely not sure, it’s not a common sign in the countries I am familiar with). Otherwise what is its purpose?
It probably wouldn’t make much sense to change a small segment in the middle of a trunk road to primary, if there is no change in importance or classification on the ground. More generally, classification would need to be consistent with the overall approach in Bosnia.
In any case it may not change the routing so long as it’s tagged as a motorroad.
I’m not sure I follow this - you may be reading too much into the rendering. Routers have no problem routing cars between these roads, so there is no problem with the geometry of the junction - it is specifically cyclists and pedestrians that are not routed.
I guess the question is whether this is a problem with OSM data or a problem with reality. It’s not something I’d want to change without local input.
1 Like
I found that sign you showed. It’s motorized traffic only.
I suppose I shouldn’t change it. I agree with everything you’ve said including the rendering.
It’d be nice if they moved that sign past the following junction. It IS a bit confusing though. They show 445 entering there just past the toll booth where I marked and also show it at the next junction. Like they just took a bite out of it. They should make it part of that little bit as an all shared portion just to be consistent (even put up a shared use sign for that little bit and allow bikes to the next junction).
As a ride it was a non - issue. There was just enough smooth paved shoulder and the exposure is brief. The other side isn’t quite as attractive though.
Thanks for your support and responses. It’s been great and you’ve been right on.
Dan
3 Likes