|
If a way can only be reached by travelling down a private way, should the way implicitly be tagged as private? Does the same apply if the access= or motor_vehicle=customers, destination or delivery? For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/61072119 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/119329973 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/170246057 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/82537122 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/221627338 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/218923344 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/250785820 Edit: Turns out there are entire villages that can only be accessed via access=destination ways. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/54566990 |
|
For the example village, I expect the access=destination on the entrances is being used as the least worst way to mark Ermine Street South as closed to through traffic. At least, I don't think there is an actual good way to indicate that. In general, it is pretty likely that the interior roads will have similar access to the roads leading to them, so the tagging should probably match up. If by implicit you mean that data consumers should infer the access, probably no, the tags should be put on all the ways. If you mean should the mismatch just be fixed, probably not unless you are sure about the access tags for the ways in question (with exceptions for when it is little edited Tiger data or whatever). It's definitely something to investigate. I'm not convinced that Papworth Everard is really closed to all through traffic, so I added:
(09 Aug '15, 13:12)
SomeoneElse ♦
Papworth Everard has signs at the north and south reading 'Papworth Everard (village only)' https://goo.gl/maps/AiO0U https://goo.gl/maps/jPfWV which could be construed as meaning no through traffic - but it doesn't have conventional no through traffic/no vehicles except for access signs. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm asking whether the mismatch should be fixed. Data consumers should do whatever makes sense for their data use case :)
(09 Aug '15, 22:05)
michaelt
3
I presume the "access for village" signs are informational rectangles (I am not looking at Google) and therefore have no regulatory import. They would be similar to the black edged 20 mph signs I have started noticing. They are intended to elicit a certain behvaiour (reducing through traffic in the village, or slowing traffic down) without needing to introduce traffic orders to make such behaviour mandatory. Non-mandatory signs are better mapped as signs rather than trying to interpret the sign and adding it to the highways.
(10 Aug '15, 10:34)
SK53 ♦
|
|
Information derived from GSV is not admissible in OSM, so it cannot be fixed without someone physically going there or someone with local knowledge. As it stands the restriction is wrong, to be a legal restriction it would require one of the red circle signs. Simply using access applies equally to pedestrians and cyclists which would be ridiculous. Higher road classification/speed limits will ensure routers do not route through traffic through the village. (re the GSV links) I suspect that they were included just to say "this is what the signs look like" not "this is how I mapped it". Your point about access being wrong because it applies to e.g. pedestrians is entirely correct, of course.
(10 Aug '15, 09:41)
SomeoneElse ♦
1
Right, I haven't edited that bit of the map and I'm not planning to - I provided the street view links to support my belief that whoever added the restriction is making a good faith effort to describe what the road signs say, rather than being added by clicking the wrong thing, or through malice.
(10 Aug '15, 21:12)
michaelt
|
