Since the latest update, it seems that ABRP avoids border crossings even if that setting is off.
Plan with direct routing (route goes all through Germany): abetterrouteplanner.com/?%3Fbugtracker=bug&plan_uuid=35807b63-8899-4794-af9c-f5d615898337
Plan with intermediate waypoint in Austria: abetterrouteplanner.com/?%3Fbugtracker=bug&plan_uuid=6145598a-126a-4afc-8334-b74d3be57431
The route with the intermediate waypoint is faster, shorter and does not cause any problems with charging. It should at least be an option for the direct route?
Activity Newest / Oldest
Status changed to: Investigate
Status changed to: User Feedback
This is not directly related to allowing or not allowing borders being crossed.
Without traffic data being taken into consideration we currently do choose to cross the border and both plans look identical.
With traffic data we'll prefer the other route and the more precise time estimate we'll produce in the final step of producing a plan will differ a bit from the route where the border is crossed. The specifics are bound to change depending on the time of the day.
Right now, when I check the difference is roughly 10 minutes, which for a 12+ hour trip I'd say would this is relatively small. The conditions for charging appear to be the same and the distance differs 6 km.
Or did you have plans with larger differences produced?
thanks a lot for the response! The issue indeed seems not to be related to border crossings, but the traffic data. Without traffic data, everything makes sense and the route goes through Ehrwald (Austria). However, with traffic data enabled, it never seems to take the route through Ehrwald, even if its substantially faster when added as an intermediate waypoint.
To narrow it down, I created a shorter route to the first charging point (Garmisch Partenkirchen to Baiershofener Str. 4, Westhausen [EnBW]). Right now, with traffic data enabled, I get the following results:
Direct route (goes through Munich): 2h58m, 265km.
Route with intermediate waypoint in Ehrwald (Austria): 2h24m, 237km.
This seems like a substantial difference to me?
Thanks a lot!