Access=forestry - "with any type of vehicle"

[Mateusz_Konieczny]

access= value applies to any mode of transport, including walking

So for example if we have highway=track access=private then general public is no allowed to drive, cycle or walk there

highway=track access=private bicycle=yes foot=yes means that you can walk and cycle there but nor say drive with a car

we also have quite widely used access=forestry, described as “Only for forestry traffic.” at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access - since 2009

At the same time Tag:access=forestry - OpenStreetMap Wiki was created in 2020 by @geozeisig and describes access=forestry as “Restricted to forestry motor vehicles”

Now it is “Restricted to usage of the road for forestry purposes (with any type of vehicle)”

It can be interpreted as “not even forestry workers can walk there” which is silly, or as “does not apply to walking, applies only to vehicles” (then it should be vehicle=forestry) or as “wiki is being silly, again”

Proposal:More access keys and values - OpenStreetMap Wiki from 2009 has “this value describes a type of traffic and allows access for” forestry “purposes, not depending on the type of transport (tractors but also motorcars, bicycles, mopeds are allowed if they are there for agricultural purposes)”

which neither clearly excludes foot traffic nor mentions it

---

what should be done with it?

Try to retag access=forestry to vehicle=forestry where it applies to vehicles, possibly adding bicycle=yes if applicable, treating it as a tagging error?

access= applies to foot traffic unless it is access=forestry?

Clarify wiki that access=forestry restricts foot trafffic?

Try to get rid of =forestry in its entirety as broken?

Ignore problem?

Something else?

Not really liking either option.

[ToniE (Toni Erdmann)]

@Mateusz_Konieczny

access= applies to foot traffic unless it is access=forestry?

No: access is general access with out any ‘unless’

@Mateusz_Konieczny

Clarify wiki that access=forestry restricts foot trafffic?

Definitely!

@Mateusz_Konieczny

Try to get rid of =forestry in its entirety as broken?

No, motor_vehicle="forestry" and motor_vehicle="agricultural" and motor_vehicle="agricultural;forestry" and other combinations with “destination”, … are very common in DE

[Mateusz_Konieczny]

BTW, Check probably incorrect access=agricultural tags · Issue #6177 · streetcomplete/StreetComplete · GitHub is very related (proposed " Check probably incorrect access=agricultural tags" for StreetComplete)

[flohoff]

@Mateusz_Konieczny

Try to retag access=forestry to vehicle=forestry where it applies to vehicles, possibly adding bicycle=yes if applicable, treating it as a tagging error?

access= applies to foot traffic unless it is access=forestry?

Clarify wiki that access=forestry restricts foot trafffic?

Try to get rid of =forestry in its entirety as broken?

Ignore problem?

Something else?

The first thing to do stuff like this is to fix documentation, to fix inflow of NEW problems into the database.

access= itself is problematic and that should be documented that it covers ALL types of mobility, and on the road network most likely is not the correct match.

One of the problems is that when we speak about “access restrictions” the “not so experienced” mapper associates that with the “access” key which in 99% of the case it isnt.

At least for Germany an “access=*” key on a public road is in 99% of the cases an error as there is no official street sign which can post this.
The most restrictive sign in Z250 which is “All vehicles” which is vehicle=no - so there is no public signage which can prohibit foot traffic. (Except the very special Z259 on Motorways and the like which then will allow motorised traffic - so no access key either).

On tracks this is (depending on jurisdications) also most likely an error. At least in parts of Germany you cant prohibit people to use the “open landscape” so an access=no/forestry/agricultural on tracks is most likely an overblocking.
And then: What about horses? Its not a vehicle, if its not explicitly signed it may be, depending on jurisdication, allowed.

So the access= key on highway=* (except service) is most likely always a misconception.

And please dont redefine access= with special key values to not include some modality. This will open a horrible can of worms.

Flo

[Mateusz_Konieczny]

@flohoff

The first thing to do stuff like this is to fix documentation, to fix inflow of NEW problems into the database.

I guess it should be phrased more or less “if ban applies only to vehicles then please use vehicle=forestry not access=forestry - use access=forestry solely if it applies to all transport modes, including pedestrians”

And maybe warn that this is often mistagged and that fixing it is a good idea?

(to not pretend that it is not widely misused)

[chris66]

@Mateusz_Konieczny

what should be done with it?

Like Others said: fix the wrong Wiki.

[dieterdreist (Martin Koppenhöfer)]

@Mateusz_Konieczny

At the same time Tag:access=forestry - OpenStreetMap Wiki was created in 2020 by @geozeisig and describes access=forestry as “Restricted to forestry motor vehicles”

Now it is “Restricted to usage of the road for forestry purposes (with any type of vehicle)”

It can be interpreted as “not even forestry workers can walk there” which is silly, or as “does not apply to walking, applies only to vehicles” (then it should be vehicle=forestry) or as “wiki is being silly, again”

silly as it may seem, if the key is access then it applies also to pedestrians. The suggested tagging (according to actual restrictions I am aware of) should be vehicle=forestry or motor_vehicle=forestry, and we should encourage people to check and retag (if applicable) those 108.000 access=forestry of which a majority is likely wrong: access=forestry | Tags | OpenStreetMap Taginfo

It was also wise to change “forestry vehicles” to “for forestry purposes”, because this is what is meant (where I am aware of), it doesn’t depend on the kind of vehicle, it only depends on the purpose.

Regarding the idea that access=forestry is about access with “any kind of vehicle”, this is also silly, and along the lines above, should not refer to “vehicles” but to general “access” (i.e. including pedestrians by default if the key is access)

[Mateusz_Konieczny]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aaccess%3Dforestry&type=revision&diff=2833029&oldid=2755775

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aaccess%3Dagricultural&type=revision&diff=2833027&oldid=2755959

[dieterdreist (Martin Koppenhöfer)]

@flohoff

At least for Germany an “access=*” key on a public road is in 99% of the cases an error as there is no official street sign which can post this.
The most restrictive sign in Z250 which is “All vehicles” which is vehicle=no - so there is no public signage which can prohibit foot traffic. (Except the very special Z259 on Motorways and the like which then will allow motorised traffic - so no access key either).

actually Z259 can forbid access to pedestrians everywhere, not only on motorways (where it is not needed, because the motorway sign alone forbids pedestrians). It is “very special” to forbid pedestrians

and it could be combined with Z250, so that effectively nobody could use the road. But I agree with the 99% wrong (or even 99,9%), as a total closure is rather rare

[flohoff]

@dieterdreist

actually Z259 can forbid access to pedestrians everywhere, not only on motorways (where it is not needed, because the motorway sign alone forbids pedestrians). It is “very special” to forbid pedestrians

Yeah But Z259+Z250 will not happen - At least i have never encountered something like that.

And it contradicts the “Public road” - Either it is public and it serves some public purpose - or its unusable. Most likely fenced off for construction.

So IMHO access=* can not be signed in DE and thus is typically b0rken. (On the (public) road network)

Flo

[dieterdreist (Martin Koppenhöfer)]

likely purpose would be to close a road in case of danger, e.g. landslide / rockfall / avalanche / volcano / nuclear disaster / military, etc.

[flyingember]

Both no vehicle and no ped signs could be needed enough that it must be possible.

We have a bridge in Kansas City where people can walk on the approach bridge in the vehicle shoulder (not a sidewalk or path) and then switch to a protected bike lane via a barrier gap. Would need both closures on the one structure if the overall bridge would be at risk. So the US equivalent of 250 and 259 would apply to one section of road where we would need to put a sign up blocking ped use if the entire bridge is closed.

The Zone Rouge in France is a great example of explicit dual closures. That kind of situation can happen anywhere and suddenly a road is gone.

The Pitcher, Oklahoma abandonment. The whole town is at risk of collapsing into old mines. They don’t even want people walking into town because of the toxic lead and zinc mining waste everywhere. (I went there three years prior, it’s a legit pedestrian closure)

A mine field would be another. A road or path absolutely can be mined and no one takes it.

Temp dangers like a fire has been mentioned.

So specific signs may not appear together but the idea of needing both 100% closures to be possible somewhere is very real.

So you have to look at context, not signage, not official standards

OSM coding really needs to shift towards having individual country standards. There”s more variance across the world than the tags allow for

[Matija_Nalis]

@flohoff

access= itself is problematic and that should be documented that it covers ALL types of mobility, and on the road network most likely is not the correct match.

TO clarify, access=* is default access tag, i.e. it applies to all values (and only those values) that do not have separate (more specific) access key.

e.g.

• access=forestry means that all access (be it motor vehicle or pedestrian) is restricted only to those from authorized forestry organization.
• access=forestry + foot=yes + bicycle=no means that pedestrians of any kind!) may go there, that all bicycles are forbidden, but everything else must be from authorized forestry organization.
• access=no + motor_vehicle=forestry + foot=permit means that it allows only motor vehicles from authorized forestry organization and pedestrians having special permit papers might pass, and nothing else is allowed.

[Mateusz_Konieczny]

@Matija_Nalis

and pedestrians having special permit papers might pass

and =permit was originally intended to mean also “and permit is ordinarily granted to anyone who goes through paperwork” but actual usage obviously drifted