<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>from viewpoint of someone who in the past worked on globally deployed<br></div><div dir="auto">routing software and has no UK-specific knowledge:<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If cycling is forbidden/private there - maybe tagging bicycle=no/private would<br></div><div dir="auto">be a good idea?<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If that sort of tagging is not done in UK - is it documented somewhere,<br></div><div dir="auto">so authors of routing software have at least chance to avoid such problems?<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I would not treat <br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom</a><br></div><div dir="auto">too seriously but it is not suggesting that "bicycle=no" should be assumed on<br></div><div dir="auto"><div>highway=track if not tagged (in fact, highway=track is not listed there at all).<br></div></div><div><br></div><div dir="auto">Maybe I missed something in<br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom</a><br></div><div dir="auto">but I see no indication that highway=track without access tags should be treated as<br></div><div dir="auto">inaccessible to cyclists.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Sep 20, 2021, 21:22 by sk53.osm@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>I just noticed someone posting on <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://twitter.com/carlmyhill/status/1440015626421116932">twitter</a> that Komoot was routing cyclists along trails where cycling is forbidden in Richmond Park (fine apparently £60). Apparently Komoot treats all highway=track & highway=path as bicycle=yes by default. Clearly this is inaccurate in most of the UK.<br></div><div><br></div><div>The issue has been known for some time, but increased usage of Komoot may bring OSM in the UK into disrepute as they typically say something <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://twitter.com/komoot/status/1439948701095583751">along the lines</a> of "we only take data as it comes from OpenStreetMap". It is getting quite common for landowners to either complain or remove private paths & tracks from OSM. This can be due to inaccurate mapping (a recent case was on the Thoresby Estate), but most often is because people are using routers which do not account for how things are mapped here.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I wonder if we can do anything to get Komoot to correct this behaviour?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Jerry<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div> </body>
</html>