Hi Harry, I also looked at street view in both Google Maps and Mapillary to confirm, and I do not see any such sign. May I please see a screenshot of what you are seeing?
-- Skyler On Sat, Apr 4, 2020, at 23:54, Harry van der Wolf wrote: > Some remarks, > > I checked with Streetview and the sign on the Tasman Drive entrance > clearly mentions "Private property" and below that "No ...." in which I > can't read the last word but I think it is trespassing or entrance or > something similar, which means the tag "access=private" is correct. > > Never, and that means never, change road tags because one navigation > app is not routing like you expect. That is really a big "NO" in the > mapping community. > > In this case OsmAnd is even 100% correct as it is really "private > eaccess". It could also mean that you get a fine when really using > those roads. OsmAnd does a good job from not routing your through the > park. > Indeed: switching on "private access" is the only thing you can do. > And please, please set the "access=private" tag back as soon as > possible. > > Harry > > > > Op zo 5 apr. 2020 om 06:42 schreef Skyler Hawthorne > <[email protected]>: > > __ > > Thanks for such a detailed response! These are super helpful suggestions, > > and help me learn more about mapping with OSM. > > > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2020, at 17:51, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > >> I believe it takes a few days for some of the online services. I > >> remember this from a year or so ago when I marked a closed road under > >> construction and when I restored it. I checked every day or so to see > >> how long it took for routing to change. > > > > Actually, I was wondering about this: does OSMAnd do all the route > > calculation itself, locally on the device? Or does it ask an online routing > > service? I might be missing it, but I don't see any options in any of the > > menus that lets you configure how you would like to get routes. I did a > > quick test and tried to calculate a route while my phone was in airplane > > mode, and it was able to do it, which is evidence to me that it's doing a > > local calculation. If it is, then routing related changes should be > > reflected as soon as the map data is updated, right? > > > >> I would be inclined, were I local, to > >> > >> move the way that represents the wall and boundary to more accurately > >> be on the wall > >> > >> split the way into segments of actual wall and not wall > >> > >> only tag the actual wall with barrier=wall > >> > >> create a relation of the segments both wall and not-wall types to form > >> a single closed relation for tagging amenity=trailer_park > > > > Interesting, I considered doing something like this, but I wasn't quite > > sure how to do it with the existing closed way that encases the whole park. > > Thanks for the suggestion, that makes it clear how to approach it that way. > > I might try that next. > > > >> > >> change these roads from highway=service to highway=residential. But, > >> parcel data might show that they are not legally roads. I would want > >> to inquire what the local conventions are. It feels to me like > >> highway=residential is more likely the right thing, especially given > >> the naming. > > > > Ah, that makes sense, will do. And the rest of your suggestions. > > > >> It is not really legitimate to change tagging from private to > >> destination to get a router to do what you want. If it really is true > >> that anyone who has a legitimate reason to travel to some place within > >> the complex can use the road, then access=destination is the right thing > >> to do, regardless of routing behavior. But if it's not, and the router > >> isn't doing what you think it should, then the router should be fixed, > >> not the data made incorrect. > > > > Thanks for the heads up, I'll keep that in mind. In this case, yes, anyone > > who wants to go in can go in, so I think access=destination is the right > > thing. > > > > > Did you turn on private access? > > > > Yes. And actually, I tried something else that yielded some really > > interesting results: I added an intermediate destination somewhere else in > > the park. It routed through the main entrance successfully, as it should > > have, and then it exited back out the park to go back to the spot outside > > the park!! I've attached a screenshot. > > > > This leads me to believe that there must be something wrong with either the > > map data or the router. I can't find any problems with the map data. All > > nodes are connected, and private road access is on. Maybe there's something > > else that's confusing the router, like the fact that they're all service > > roads. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "OsmAnd" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to [email protected]. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osmand/9b7d524e-233b-4efc-815c-8d76d5b7dfa1%40www.fastmail.com > > > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osmand/9b7d524e-233b-4efc-815c-8d76d5b7dfa1%40www.fastmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "OsmAnd" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/osmand/NAb2LvebHCE/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osmand/CAGARPpsRLY24fc_DPA_VQOuvjj7sgnw9PCFvJ2EQ82kU_RAcZA%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osmand/CAGARPpsRLY24fc_DPA_VQOuvjj7sgnw9PCFvJ2EQ82kU_RAcZA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OsmAnd" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osmand/8c8425ae-8e1d-498c-971e-61c4df66bc03%40www.fastmail.com.
