Rethinking yes/no legal access tags on ways to document physical restrictions

[Minh_Nguyen (Minh Nguyễn)]

@julcnx

If a way is permissive, it can be considered as already suitable. If it’s private or discouraged, routers will already avoid it.

I’m not sure if it affects your overall proposal, but this behavior isn’t guaranteed:

@Minh_Nguyen

The following animation provided by OSRM’s creator illustrates how routers generally deal with the situation in which you’re surrounded by inaccessible paths. If your starting point lies within the island, you aren’t trapped on the island. This is important for serving origins or destinations within gated compounds, for instance.

Data consumers’ handling of unrecognized values is also inconsistent:

@Minh_Nguyen

The handling of undefined access tag values is naturally undefined, so data consumers behave differently. Some equate an unrecognized access tag value with yes, such as OSRM’s default driving profile and OSM Carto. Others equate it with no.

But sometimes it’s especially important for routers to adhere to practicality regardless of the legalities:

@Minh_Nguyen

@Mateusz_Konieczny

I would also notify local authorities about dangerous road location

Apparently the bridge and road were on private property – the suit also names the owners as co-defendants. The state highway department says they didn’t have the authority to erect barriers on the owners’ behalf.