I’m planning to suggest to the editors that based on the information they have, that they should tag the node
That is all the information they have.
Will this route consistently? Or should they also be advised to add access=yes as a third tag? This is the suggestion on the wiki here, but I’m still not sure if that would solve this “different engine, different routes” problem.
Thoughts? And is there anywhere we can read the policies of different routing engines?
No, as it is unclear what kind of barrier it is. It could be a bollard, it could be a closed gate.
With motor_vehicle=no on it I would expect car routing to be blocked and it may make sense to open an issue if it is not. But bicycle and foot routing still must purely guess as OSM data has not enough info.
Some publish source code at least.
Why? It at least gives hint for people that survey would be useful.
Agreed - however I suspect that what has happened here is that an Amazon editor got a report from one of their drivers that a road was inaccessible to their vehicle. They didn’t have any local knowledge (and at first glance imagery seems unclear) and so did the least change possible to resolve the issue for their use case and added a note. If you’re familiar with the area I’d suggest updating the barrier with details of what it actually is. If not, leave the note and the node for someone who is.
The example routers on osm.org are basically just general “proof of concept” examples - adjusting tagging to match their results would be often wrong.
Maybe I’ve been guilty of over-correction here, but not sure about that yet.
The initial edit by aepunavy replaced a short stretch of road with a cycle path. This seems to be a common way of dealing with this situation by Amazon (see also here and here, among other examples I’ve seen).
This seems not to follow the on-the-ground rule, and does more than the “least change possible”. Reading from OS Open Local it does look like the road has been removed, but the aerial shows that in fact it’s simply a barrier of some sort.
In this case I think I missed that the driver (apparently; if only we could see their feedback!) notified the mapping team that this was passable by bicycle. Very often (and I think I jumped to the conclusion that this was the case here) we just see “driver reported they couldn’t access” + edit to insert cycle / foot path.
To me it seems the correct approach for these situations in general (here’s another, by mapbox I guess, which was a note for a long time) would be:
barrier=yes (assuming no further info)
access=yes (that is, as the road was before the barrier; or if road is not access=yes, its own restrictions will prevail for the router anyway)
motor_vehicle=no (because all Amazon seems to have learned is “our driver couldn’t pass”)
In response to my comment on the note, deepikja removed the miniature cycle-path added by aepunavy: see here.
Thoughts on my approach and her response?
I’m minded anyway to re-engage with deepikja and find out exactly what they get from their drivers in these cases. Unless that’s already been established somewhere else in OSM-world?
Also this seems to an implicit assumption that, given a barrier=yes, would mean would be earlier updated than a new barier=<correct_value> which I do not think is correct. I think people map earlier a barrier that is not present then that they update a barrier=yes.
Did you read what I wrote earlier on motor_vehicle=no?
Some barriers defy classification. For example, I’ve encountered a trail closure that consisted of a ditch, a berm, a pile of fallen logs and branches, a strand of barbed wire strung across the trail at neck height with a “no trespassing” sign hanging from it, and some sharpened stakes set into the ground. How would you tag that, beyond barrier=keep_off_my_property?
Yes. In the UK, where this is, I know zero cases where motor-vehicle excludes the things you’ve mentioned. Here, “motor-vehicle” means “mechanically propelled”. So, at least from the point of view of road rights, an electric scooter and a family car are equivalent.
I face a similar case in my area, which the barrier on two roads is a big pile of dirt. The closest documented value, seems to be barrier=debris (“A road is blocked by debris with or without ground. This might be for short or long time. Often used as first (temporary) step in blocking an abandoned road, or a road in construction.”).
It may not be the most proper in your case, but I think it’s the closest from the documented ones.
In this case we know there’s a barrier, and we know a driver of a van can’t pass it. As far as I can tell, in these situations Amazon doesn’t usually know more than that. I’m not sure why we wouldn’t tag barrier=yes here. In my experience, weird routing has often been a hint to me that a barrier needs refining.
The somewhat bizarre situation in the UK is that it’s not legal to use a privately owned electric scooter on public roads in the UK but it is legal to rent one from one of the rental schemes operating in many cities now, hence the “Of course it’s physically possible, but it’s not legal” answer lower down.
Okay, I was not aware that in the UK mofa’s are a hot debated subject, I searched for “scooters uk” but the only thing that was returned was information about e-scooters and a push to get things legalized.
So I understand mofa’s are some grey zone in the UK, instead let’s talk about these type of scooters, I assume you call that moped.
Are you also saying that although a moped can physically pass a bollard there is some UK rule that makes this illegal?