You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In the car profile, access=yes is currently treated as allowing traversal regardless of path type - for instance this corridor is considered accessible to cars by OSRM. This interpretation follows the letter of the definition of the access tag, but perhaps not the spirit; I suspect the vast majority of ways tagged this way are not actually accessible to motor vehicles. From the OSM wiki:
In theory, adding access=yes to highway=footway could be read as changing default restrictions (which usually are foot=yes and vehicle=no for highway=footway) to yes, highway=footway + access=yes means "road, which is open for all pedestrians and vehicles".
In practice, this combination is often used by mappers to modify (rather than enlarge) default values: for example, access=permissive with highway=steps is very unlikely to be traversable by a truck, whatever the tags may say.
Maybe we should only allow traversal by motor vehicles on ways that generally wouldn't allow them (e.g. footway, cycleway, steps, elevator, corridor) if access:motor_vehicle or access:motorcar is set?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In the car profile,
access=yes
is currently treated as allowing traversal regardless of path type - for instance this corridor is considered accessible to cars by OSRM. This interpretation follows the letter of the definition of the access tag, but perhaps not the spirit; I suspect the vast majority of ways tagged this way are not actually accessible to motor vehicles. From the OSM wiki:Maybe we should only allow traversal by motor vehicles on ways that generally wouldn't allow them (e.g. footway, cycleway, steps, elevator, corridor) if
access:motor_vehicle
oraccess:motorcar
is set?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: