[OSM-talk-ie] "access=yes" on highway=trunk

[Andy Townsend]

On 30/12/2020 13:47, Colm Moore wrote:
> Hi,
>
> access=yes is important because some route planners seem to assume that highway=trunk means a UK-style expressway (fully or nearly fully grade-separated dual carriageway with no access for pedestrians and possibly other categories). Alternatively, they may just deem them unsuitable for pedestrians. Examples of these in Ireland would be the South City Link Road in Cork or the Chapelizod Bypass in Dublin.

Thanks for that.

To be honest, that sounds like a bug with whatever router is making that 
assumption.  The usual tag that should indicate that pedestrians aren't 
allowed is "motorroad=yes" - if that isn't there and the user isn't in a 
country where that is a reasonable default for a trunk road (and it's 
not a reasonable default for either IE or the UK FWIW) then there's no 
reasons why pedestrians shouldn't be routed along that road.

Plenty of trunk roads near me (rural UK) have sidewalks or wide verges, 
and are a pretty safe environment.


> Not accounting for the issue can mean pedestrians in locations on national routes are routed via long(er) detours instead of just crossing the street. https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=52.0936%2C-7.6304%3B52.0937%2C-7.6233#map=16/52.0923/-7.6260 or https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=51.90661%2C-8.39573%3B51.90682%2C-8.39722#map=15/51.9116/-8.3930

I'm guessing that that's hosted by Fossgis in Germany.  My 
understanding, based on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrunk , is that the 
OSM mappers in Germany only map motorroads as trunk, which might explain it.

Interestingly it appears that 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=52.09360%2C-7.63040%3B52.09370%2C-7.62330#map=17/52.09351/-7.62688 
works correctly, so perhaps an option might be to use the router without 
that bug?

Best Regards,

Andy