Is it possible to allow routeing by foot over routes that are set to allow access to ‘all’ but have foot set as ‘Not Specified’? I’ve found a couple of bridleways I run along that don’t allow routeing. I changed the foot to ‘yes’ for one of them near Manchester Airport a few months back and that now works but I found another one here:
https://bit.ly/2XkT08d
that doesn’t. I’ve just changed this today to ‘yes’ for foot access but this might take some time to ripple through to your routeing engine. Given access to all is allowed, and then motor vehicles are set to ‘no’, shouldn’t foot routeing just work even if ‘Not Specified’, given the access flag ‘all’ is set to ‘yes’?
Hi @markcoley,
whether a way is accepted depends on the profile and the tags (note that the tag combinations are checked from top to bottom).
So basically if the foot tag is not set to and accepted value, the way will be rejected in the highway != check.
This issue on bridleways might also be related.
Best regards
regarding:
What do you mean with that? all is not a valid value for access. With access:yes routing via foot-* profiles should work.
Thanks for reply @amandus. It looks like that bridleway issue is the same one I have spotted. All bridleways are accessible by foot in the UK/Channel Islands. I’ve just checked the history and it was I who added it (as a cycle path) 12 years ago! (I did a lot of Guernsey back then - a really enjoyable time going along miles and miles of footpaths and roads I’d never been on). It was changed to a bridleway about 3 years ago and that is where the cycle/foot access must have flipped to ‘Not Specified’. I suspect there might be a lot of bridleways that don’t have foot access and the field is blank (or Not Specified) as it was never explicitly set. I’ve added cycle access back again too.
With regard to the ‘Allowed Access’ setting on the editor I mentioned, for ‘All’ it was set to ‘yes’ but having now understood the bridleway issue I can see that is purely the legal position rather than the mechanism of access. In essence bridleways need to specifically allow foot access. If OSM updated at some point in the past to allow bridleways without having to specify foot access it may be there are many bridleways with unspecified foot access and a presumption of access would be far more likely than not I suspect.
How long might it take for my corrections to the OSM data to ripple through to your routeing engine?
that will be 1-2 weeks. Updates are monday mornings. The graphs for next monday might be built already, so maybe the monday after
1 Like
I’ve found another routeing issue that I don’t understand (it’s always interesting when you find your own old posts!). I’m trying to measure a marathon course around Cambridge and there is a short section of cycle path / pavement that your routeing engine won’t show as an allowable route for foot, but it will for a bike. It seems to have the correct access flags in OpenStreetMap’s editor (foot = yes).
Please see here.
The cycle path was last updated in 2020 so your database should be up to date. Do you know why it doesn’t come up as a valid route?
This is another example where routeing by foot doesn’t seem to pick up the paths which have foot=yes coded.