search

osm-fr / osmose-backend

Part of osmose that runs the analysis, and send the results to the frontend.
GNU General Public License v3.0
94 stars 116 forks source link

Way access mismatch relation route=bicycle with highway=pedestrian #2043

Open blef00fr opened 1 year ago

blef00fr commented 1 year ago

http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/fr/issue/b36049b5-cc4d-865d-547f-79433092452d

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1110580785

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1115348

At least here in France, bicycles are allowed on pedestrian areas: article R431-9 fourth paragraph of the highway code (article R431-9 4e paragraphe du Code de la Route). https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000030851697/2021-08-01

frodrigo commented 1 year ago

Should be explicit in OSM https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian#Vehicle_access

Famlam commented 1 year ago

It's indeed listed as such here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#By_country

blef00fr commented 1 year ago

I'm preparing to integrate the rule quoted into the wiki to comply with it.

blef00fr commented 1 year ago

I've modified the relevant wiki pages (EN + FR) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dpedestrian&type=revision&diff=2604031&oldid=2582222 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=FR%3ATag%3Ahighway%3Dpedestrian&type=revision&diff=2604028&oldid=1385812 Nevertheless, I've kept the advice to specify the conditions of access despite the implicit authorization. Do you have an opinion on this? Or should I consult the community on a forum? In any case, is Osmose's warning now timely?

frodrigo commented 1 year ago

Ok, but Osmose does not use the access default matrix table and routing probably neither. Maybe interesting to see if there is machine readable source for such data (dataitem ?)

Famlam commented 1 year ago

Ok, but Osmose does not use the access default matrix table and routing probably neither.

Correct. It also states that on the wiki: As per 2022, no mainstream routing engine is known to use this page directly to influence routing behavior. There is also no fixed format (see for example Austria, which has exceptions for Tirol; sometimes foot/pedestrian are combined (Austria), sometimes separate (Belgium); sometimes bicycle is combined with mofa (Brazil); some have practically a full wiki page as footnotes (Netherlands)). So I don't think there's any way of parsing this automatically.

We could probably add a fix message:

Check if the route should indeed use this highway.
If not, move the route so that it follows the designated paths.
This could require shifting the route to separately drawn parallel highways.

If you are sure that the route should follow this way, consider adding `{access_tag}=yes`

Alternatively or simultaneously, we could just exclude pedestrian. Out of the 32 countries listed on that wiki, 12 permit cyclists on highway=pedestrian. (Just like cycleway is excluded for foot relations because it differs so much per country)