Changeset: 61513508
Cars should never be allowed to drive into this intersection, I am making this round about consistent with the road that precedes it, the road that flows into this one is access=no, therefore this road should match what came before.
Closed by samguer
Tags
changesets_count | 113 |
---|---|
created_by | iD 2.10.0 |
host | https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit |
imagery_used | Bavaria (80 cm);Bing Streetside;Mapillary Images;Mapillary Signs;OpenStreetCam Images |
locale | en-US |
Discussion
-
Comment from ToniE
Hi samguer,
I see your point here.
4 years ago, I tagged the service road that leads to and from the ligt_gate w/o access=no/private/....
Seems that your Navi tries to route you directly to the lift_gate (behind the gate it is motor_vehicle=private) on way 265849909. But isn't the access to this way restricted by the access of the service road "Schindlerplatz" (public service vehicles only).Hmm, does your Navi respect/take into account motor_vehicle=private or not?
Best regards
Toni -
Comment from samguer
Hello Toni,
I was following the openstreemap wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dno
"a road tagged access=no and psv=yes generally withdraws any legal right of way but permits public service vehicles. A routing program in psv mode may use this way."
The Navi correctly avoids Schindlerplatz becuase it has "access=no and psv=yes", your tagging. But the roundabout is still detected because it lacks either of these two.
"The access=no tag indicates that the object is not to be used by the general public, with stronger interdiction than the access=private tag."
Which is why i added access=no to all the round about segments, for our navi this enough to make it so routing does not try to navigate through here, or detect the roundabout.
Please let me know what you think, i'd really like your opinion. It could be nice to have round about as "access=no and psv=yes", but if this breaks something you have, then i'll change everything back.
Question: in Germany is the moto_vehicle=private a widely used tag?
Thanks for your time
Sam -
Comment from ToniE
Hi Sam,
You're welcome.
Let's separate the discussion about Schindlerplatz and the round about.
- Schindlerplatz is on public grounds and access is not allowed for motor vehicles by traffic signs.
- the round about is on private grounds owned by the real estate owner of the site.
access to the round about is therefore more or less 'private'.- Yes, motor_vehicle=private is widely used for this reason, maybe also 'permissive' - but here at this spot, we have a lift_gate and at least there someone has to grant you access to the round about (aka lift the gate).
- So the way before the lift_gate is either access=yes for all or maybe =permissive (you don't have to ask for permission), but after the lift_gate, it is 'private'.
foot may pass the lift_gate w/o asking to lift the gate - so either foot=yes or maybe foot=permissive- I just added a short strip from Carl-Wery-Straße towards the lift-gate (thus prolonging way 265849909 ). This way should theoretically be w/o access=no or any other limitation, it is on public grounds and you may use every inch of that.
Having connected this way now directly with Carl-Wery-Straße migth worsen the issue - no need to use Schindlerplatz any longer.- Navis should consider "private" and other settings. OSMAND for instance has a config option to allow/disallow usage of private ways.
- Navis might also try to find the closest way to a destination/address - maybe routing you into a dead end way where you have to stop before a lift_gate, which no one will open for you.
- There are many other aspects why I split driveways/alleys at the border of the propperty - allowing full access on the part from street to propperty (public grounds) and access=private on the private propperty.
- That's why there was no *=private/no on the way towards the lift_gate (way 265849909) - it is not physically impossible nor legally forbidden to use that way, at least until the landuse=commercial.
- Comming back to your Navi. The round about itself (way 265849859) and the connecting ways to/from the lift_gates were already tagged with access=no (but w/ motor_vehicle=private). So your Navi shouldn't route you on these ways.
What was the original problem? Did it route you on way 265849909 or did it really route you on/through the round about (265849859)?
Sorry for being so exhaustive. I'm just trying to understand your problem and your intentions for the change, so that I can think about a propper solution for you whilst not breaking the "rules" at the same time.
Best regards
Toni -
Comment from samguer
Toni,
-Wow, what an explanation. Thanks, so clear now, I see what happened. I see why it is tagged the way so, I will revert back my changes. I think we need to look at how we treat motor_vehicle=private tag internally.
-For more context, when we make deliveries, if a route is motor_vehicle=private, we do not want to drop this road from the map, sometimes someone orders a package and the only way to their facility is through a private route, we will route them through it if it is the only way to their facility.
-We drop a road if it is access=no. You're right, 265849909 is successfully dropped from the map and drivers will not be routed to there. but 265849859, 265849958, and 265849921 were still part of our map (they had access=yes). What this looks like is half a round about. You have a round about where the only way in is through an out bound one way road. There is no way into the round about because 265849909 is not considered. This confuses our routing engine.
-This is why motor_vehicle=private was not enough, and why I made 265849859, 265849958, and 265849921 access=no. So that all segments will be not considered for routing. Better to have no roundabout than half and confuse the routing. There is a round about and no way to get to it, it loses its mind.
-Solution: problem needs to be fixed on our end, osm should go back to the way it was before i changed it.
Toni, this has been a pleasure, i'm grateful for you taking the time to explain the situation. Let me know if you'd like to change it back or don't mind if i do it. Please let me know your thoughts.
Best
Sam -
Comment from ToniE
Hi Sam,
sorry for the delay ... UTC+2 here and your time zone?
The pleasure was also on my side.
Please go ahead, I don't mind if you do the changes.Best regards
ToniBTW: way 265849958 should have full access for all - another aspect of splitting:
bicyclists comming from the north might then turn left here, cross Carl-Wery-Straße tiwce and head of for the southern part of the subway station (entrance 'G', 3 bicycle parking facilities).
Otherwise they would have to cycle to the south until the next crossing with Therese-Giese-Allee ... and that detour includes an incline=up (not mapped though).BTW2: This station in 3D based on OSM data?
http://demo.f4map.com/#lat=48.0883096&lon=11.6447442&zoom=20&camera.theta=46.768&camera.phi=76.308
Ways (5)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |