Thanks, folks, that's really informative! I can see that OsmAnd's behaviour towards gates and inaccessible driving destinations is intentional and likely to be helpful with typical OSM data. The situation I described is unusual, and some announcement beyond "Turn right" (down a hypothetical road) would have been nice. But now I'm aware, it's not a big deal.
The OSM tagging for the access to this car park could be improved, but not by me. When I visited the gate *was* locked, I guess as a Covid-19 precaution. The area was well-maintained, so probably the gate would be left open otherwise. But it's not an area I know. On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 12:27:43 PM UTC+1, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > A Thompson <[email protected] <javascript:>> 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/7175dde0-12df-443e-9f79-faf8052b74b4o%40googlegroups.com.
