Access=destination roads should always be accessible for pedestrians #7411

New issue

Open

opened 2024-02-17 16:54:30 +00:00 by Kamerijker · 4 comments

Kamerijker commented

2024-02-17 16:54:30 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

OM prohibits pedestrian passing through a road whose key is access=destination, unless specifically tagged as foot=yes. This can result in very strange routings. In hardly any country (none that I know off ) the qualification access=destination applies to pedestrians. So pedestrians should always have access unless otherwise specified. Although the OSM guidelines prefer not using this general key and tagging more specifically for vehicles or motor vehicles, there are still thousands of instances where the general tag is used and it would be very unrealistic to expect they’ll all be changed. Therefore OM should consider the majority rather than the exception and allow routing for pedestrians through roads tagged as destination.
The examples are from OSM location SintPietersLeeuw Belgium Ziekenhuis Inkendaal.

The OM screenshots show the original routing ( big detour) and one with an added stop (correct route)

OM prohibits pedestrian passing through a road whose key is access=destination, unless specifically tagged as foot=yes. This can result in very strange routings. In hardly any country (none that I know off ) the qualification access=destination applies to pedestrians. So pedestrians should always have access unless otherwise specified. Although the OSM guidelines prefer not using this general key and tagging more specifically for vehicles or motor vehicles, there are still thousands of instances where the general tag is used and it would be very unrealistic to expect they’ll all be changed. Therefore OM should consider the majority rather than the exception and allow routing for pedestrians through roads tagged as destination. The examples are from OSM location SintPietersLeeuw Belgium Ziekenhuis Inkendaal. ![Weg ‪Obbeekstraat‬ (‪24590951‬) OpenStreetMap](/uploads/7f283e971842649e290c8299c43530e6/b2aa9a77-e034-4dfd-b975-f3910f580314) The OM screenshots show the original routing ( big detour) and one with an added stop (correct route) ![Schermafbeelding 2024-02-15 om 11 12 04](/uploads/a818f7aec21d46d7f5b7f7394cbd4742/75f1ca91-9d19-42a0-b2d6-9711b5d27163) ![Schermafbeelding 2024-02-15 om 11 12 39](/uploads/1f84e241cfdaabecbbb436548b14230f/b59fca7b-6ce2-4031-b0dc-063380f54656)

Kamerijker commented

2024-02-19 14:20:25 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

There are 399130 occurrences of access=destination in OSM,
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/access=destination#overview.
All those I probed assume free passage of pedestrians (no foot=yes tag) and create a problem when trying to transit them for walking in OM.
Although OMS wiki mentions it is practically only used for vehicles or motor vehicles (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#List_of_possible_values), and the usage is not clear (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddestination), it seems to be widely used.
So I would suggest do disregard this tag for routing when walking in OM (as does e.g. GraphHopper) because it is unpractical to expect these 399130 instances to be updated, and it may result in a lot of awkward routes and maybe a lot of support issues. The same may be true for bicycles, but I am not a cyclist, so I cannot judge on that.
If this is not desirable or possible, I would suggest to show roads that are access=destination in another colour or pattern on the screen, as does OSM on their map (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.80240/4.25184) so that they can quickly be identified and circumvented through adding intermediate stops.

There are 399130 occurrences of access=destination in OSM, https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/access=destination#overview. All those I probed assume free passage of pedestrians (no foot=yes tag) and create a problem when trying to transit them for walking in OM. Although OMS wiki mentions it is practically only used for vehicles or motor vehicles (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#List_of_possible_values), and the usage is not clear (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddestination), it seems to be widely used. So I would suggest do disregard this tag for routing when walking in OM (as does e.g. GraphHopper) because it is unpractical to expect these 399130 instances to be updated, and it may result in a lot of awkward routes and maybe a lot of support issues. The same may be true for bicycles, but I am not a cyclist, so I cannot judge on that. If this is not desirable or possible, I would suggest to show roads that are access=destination in another colour or pattern on the screen, as does OSM on their map (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.80240/4.25184) so that they can quickly be identified and circumvented through adding intermediate stops.

biodranik commented

2024-02-19 20:29:24 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@vng is it easy to do?

`@vng` is it easy to do?

DesertBear commented

2024-02-21 00:04:22 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Depending on the country's laws you could be routing people through private land that they do not have permission to be on (I.E. trespassing). Some countries laws may be more relaxed, however in other countries the only way someone is legally allowed on a particular piece of land is if the landowner gives explicit permission. access=destination does not imply the landowner has given permission for general public access.

I think you need to be careful here. access=destination can mean that it is privately-owned, with access rights only granted to get to the destination, sometimes with additional access limitations such as only during opening hours. You cannot assume that the general public has full access rights. Depending on the country's laws you could be routing people through private land that they do not have permission to be on (I.E. trespassing). Some countries laws may be more relaxed, however in other countries the only way someone is legally allowed on a particular piece of land is if the landowner gives explicit permission. access=destination does not imply the landowner has given permission for general public access.

Kamerijker commented

2024-02-21 09:21:05 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Let me not agree with your comment. If a road is private it should be tagged access= private, possibly with local exceptions such as foot=yes , etc.. Destination roads are supposed to be public roads with restricted vehicular traffic, and in practice always allowed for pedestrians.
I think OM should not consider wrong tagging or lack of updated data as a general rule. This is the drawback of having to use map data from other sources such as OSM. I myself found OSM data that was not updated for more than 4 years to reflect a changed situation on the ground. Unfortunately not all OSM contributors are very reliable in their updates (luckily it is a minority).

Let me not agree with your comment. If a road is private it should be tagged access= private, possibly with local exceptions such as foot=yes , etc.. Destination roads are supposed to be public roads with restricted vehicular traffic, and in practice always allowed for pedestrians. I think OM should not consider wrong tagging or lack of updated data as a general rule. This is the drawback of having to use map data from other sources such as OSM. I myself found OSM data that was not updated for more than 4 years to reflect a changed situation on the ground. Unfortunately not all OSM contributors are very reliable in their updates (luckily it is a minority).