Truck Height being ignored in Truck Routing calculations RRS feed

  • Question

  • I have noticed that if I create a route and specify a truck height, the route does not change no matter what I set the height at.

    For example if I route a truck from Denver to Des Moines, IA for example and set my truck height to 10ft, I get a normal route following Interstate 80. If I set my truck height to some ridiculous height like 50ft and recalculate the route, the route still takes I80. There are a lot of overpasses on I80 so best case is it should reject the route because there are no known routes without at least one overpass (just getting out of Denver would be a problem), worst case it would draw some different route other than I80.

    The other parameters (width, length, hazmat, etc.) all seem to be working correctly in the calculations.

    Is this a bug or am I not specifying something correctly?


    Thursday, January 16, 2020 10:52 PM

All replies

  • Can you provide a sample of your call with your key removed?
    Saturday, January 18, 2020 10:28 PM
  • Since my request is made using POST I am unable to provide the full url.

    To test though would be easy enough. Create a route from Denver, CO to Des Moines IA. Note that the route runs up I76 to I80 then to Des Moines. Now set the height to say 50ft and execute. Note that the route doesn't change.


    Monday, January 20, 2020 9:23 PM
  • I am not able to reproduce the height issue with our sample so potentially there is a data issue on the route. If you would like to try, here is what I did:

    Step 1: Go to

    Step 2: Remove the 'F' from the last two Vehicle hazardous entries and leave an empty string

    Step 3: Run and see that the route now takes the tunnel

    Step 4 Set the height to 50 and run it again to see that the route then avoids the tunnel

    Here are the values that prove that the height of 50 ft is being respected:

            routeMode: Microsoft.Maps.Directions.RouteMode.truck,
            vehicleSpec: {
                dimensionUnit: 'ft',
                weightUnit: 'lb',
                vehicleHeight: 50,
                vehicleWidth: 3.5,
                vehicleLength: 30,
                vehicleWeight: 30000,
                vehicleAxles: 3,
                vehicleTrailers: 2,
                vehicleSemi: true,
                vehicleMaxGradient: 10,
                vehicleMinTurnRadius: 15,
                vehicleAvoidCrossWind: true,
                vehicleAvoidGroundingRisk: true,
                vehicleHazardousMaterials: '',
                vehicleHazardousPermits: ''

    Can you narrow down the particular item on the route that might be incorrectly sized?

    Wednesday, January 22, 2020 11:45 PM
  • Sorry for the late reply.

    Run the route from:

        var wp1 = new Microsoft.Maps.Directions.Waypoint({
            address: '201 W Colfax Ave, Denver, CO',
            location: new Microsoft.Maps.Location(39.740128, -104.98994)

    to the same wp2.

    When vehicleHeight = 5, the route goes via I70 out of Denver

    When vehicleHeight = 55 the route goes via I76 to I80. This route is impossible with a vehicle height of 55 feet due to the number of overpasses on the interstate. I believe that Bing should have rejected this route outright because it would have even been impossible to leave Denver without encountering an overpass.


    Saturday, January 25, 2020 6:26 AM
  • I understand the route may have overpasses but without a specific one to test against I can't tell where the data is failing.  As I demonstrated, the route call does respect data along the route even where the height is set to 50.  Can you please provide the location that should be causing the route to fail?  I am not familiar with the highways you mention so I will need specific overpass locations that should be causing the failure.
    Tuesday, January 28, 2020 6:35 AM
  • Here are a couple of examples along I-80 in Nebraska:

    41.115017, -101.715186


    Both are overpasses near Ogallala, Nebraska. Since they are on the Interstate their standard clearance would be between 14-16 feet.

    There are overpasses well before this but I was familiar with these two.

    As a side question, shouldn't the software rule out ridiculous heights or widths before it even tries to calculate a route? I know it is problematic to determine what is a ridiculous number, but I would think anything over 20 feet would be suspect.


    Tuesday, January 28, 2020 2:50 PM
  • I expect that might be what is at issue here.  The data for these overpasses might not exist because all transport of reasonable height would not be affected.  I have asked the routing team for their opinion but I expect this experience is a combination of routing and data.
    Tuesday, January 28, 2020 5:04 PM