<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I see that from the other end - when I report issues in Komoot, I
check them in OSM first. I either fix OSM, or more likely, include
the fact that the underlying data is right in my bug report. I've
seen several issues. It's not usually access= with them (though
there are edge cases), but the the most common is that they seem
to assume turn restrictions don't apply to bikes. That can be
hazardous on multi-lane roads.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>But in general a lot of renderers (e.g. OpenAndroMaps Elevate)
seem to prioritise the type of a way over access, even when they
clearly can deal with access. My suspicion is that the developers
are from somewhere with nothing like the UK's rights of way
systems<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Chris<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 22/07/2022 16:44, Andy Townsend
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0be15d5b-f4da-baa2-685f-4417d3e16219@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 22/07/2022 15:23, Dave F via
Talk-GB wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:57633c26-1936-1529-6d54-54f8b0f0579b@btinternet.com">"and
that OS will refer the public to OSM stating it's an OSM issue.
" <br>
<br>
That's an unfounded assumption on your part. <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>As a DWG member I see complaints about almost all apps that
show any OSM attribution, including but not limited to:</p>
<ul>
<li>Facebook/Instagram</li>
<li>Bing, Apple and other map sites<br>
</li>
<li>Alltrails (and other "hiking" apps)<br>
</li>
<li>Komoot and other routers<br>
</li>
<li>... and yes, Ordnance Survey (and OS customers)</li>
</ul>
<p>Most of these complaints are unfounded. A very common problem
is that (as in this case) access information is available from
OSM but is ignored by the company using the data*. It is
unfortunately common that these companies refer their users to
OSM about non-OSM problems (at least 4 of the examples above
have done so).</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Picking up on something that Jez said in another reply:</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">The footpaths layer in Mapbox Streets is neither
attributed with 'access' nor split into separate
permitted/private layers, so a developer is unable to tell
whether there is an access restriction.</div>
</blockquote>
I think it's a little unfair on Mapbox. If the OS has chosen to
use a product that is unfit for their purpose then that's their
fault, not Mapbox's, surely? I would hope that OSM UK (given that
they are in contact with the OS) would make that clear. If it
would help, I'd be happy to explain "how access tags work in OSM"
to the OS with a DWG hat on; just drop an introductory email to <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:data@openstreetmap.org" moz-do-not-send="true">data@openstreetmap.org</a>
.
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Best Regards,</p>
<p>Andy</p>
<p>(from the DWG** which tends to get the complaints that the top
of this mail suggested do not occur)<br>
</p>
<p>* another is where the company concerned has their own source
of "places" data (think Facebook/Instagram) which is overlaid
onto an OSM background, and OSM gets the complaint</p>
<p>** <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group</a><br>
</p>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>