A Thompson <[email protected]> writes: > It has a barrier=gate at the start of its service road, but nothing in OSM > to say that it is inaccessible:
My long-term osm view has been that barrier=gate without any access tag implies no access, rather that access yes/permissive. I agree that the current wiki text implies that barrier=gate should strictly be treated as a delay and not an access restriction. However, I suspect there are a lot of barrier=gate tags which are not properly accessible and it makes sense for routing to err to access no when not tagged. I am guessing that the appropriate action is to drive to the gate, get out and open it, drive through, close it, and drive on. And that it is not locked and anyone may do this, as a matter of right. Is that what you mean? I suggest that the proper resolution is to tag the access on this gate. > Instead, OsmAnd navigates to the closest point on a road and then imagines > a road that is a straight line to the destination. The navigation > instructions say to drive down this imaginary road as if it really exists! That is osmaand default, and if the destination is very close, e.g. a hosue without mapped diveway, it makes sense. > This was very confusing for me when I was driving! Is it a bug, and if so > do the developers already know about it? I would say it is a bug that it is not clearly "you have arrived at the point on a road closest to your destination. The destination is 130m to your left." But once you know it does this, it's clear. -- 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/rmi4kpag2qe.fsf%40s1.lexort.com.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
