Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Short ways added to substitute barriers

sent from a phone > On 29. Oct 2018, at 11:11, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > I would consider it as a tagging for renderer, and it would be preferable to > avoid it (tagging > > access on gate should be sufficient). On the other hand it is one of the > least harmful ones > It should be

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Short ways added to substitute barriers

29. Oct 2018 11:43 by davefoxfa...@btinternet.com : >  It's the gate which is the restriction. The problem is the gate > doesn't have any subtags to indicate access. > I am using access=*, vehicle=*, bicycle=*, foot=*, opening_hours=*  At least

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Short ways added to substitute barriers

Hi I've had similar in my area, also by Amazon Logistics *, where they added a short section around a gate like one you've indicated with access=private. I removed it as you can drive right up to the gate. This is tagging incorrectly for the router.  It's the gate which is the restriction.

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Short ways added to substitute barriers

Your assumptions are spot-on. Thanks for the advice. On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 20:12, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > 29. Oct 2018 04:08 by jem.maw...@gmail.com: > > > Re: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/634085262 and several more like it > in the area. > > It seems that new, short ways have been

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Short ways added to substitute barriers

29. Oct 2018 04:08 by jem.maw...@gmail.com : > > Re: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/634085262 > > and several more like it in > the area. > It seems that new, short ways have been introduced to replicate the

[OSM-talk] Fwd: Short ways added to substitute barriers

Re: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/634085262 and several more like it in the area. It seems that new, short ways have been introduced to replicate the purpose of the existing barrier nodes. i.e. to prevent routing for vehicular traffic. I believe it is incorrect and just adds complexity. I