The A3 trunk road in the UK and other "virtual" motorways that are clearly unsafe to run on

I just had one “dead-end” road to complete in my village which seems forever behind a locked gate although Google Street View does show it open in 2 views about 10 years ago! I had hoped to “nip in” but then thought, even if I nip behind a car coming out, what if I can’t get back out again so have just done my first edit in OSM and have hopefully marked it as a private road. Assuming this works there are few other similar ones I think I will need to also mark.

More tricky however is that the A3 3 lane trunk road passes quite close to me. It is not a motorway per se but essentially it is as it has a hard shoulder alongside 70 mph traffic but, in a lot of places, there is no pavement/sidewalk/cycle path. In other words you would be risking life and limb to tick off those nodes. I am not sure however what the general policy is with such roads in excluding them? Don’t really want to exclude the whole road from Surrey to the south coast as many parts have safely runable bits to the side as mentioned.

Luckily, the general approach within the OpenStreetMap editing community falls inline with how we use streets in CityStrides. There are some tags that can be applied to streets to mark them as unsafe for pedestrians.

There are a few options, and the OSM is particular - so I don’t know exactly which tag is the ‘correct’ tag in your case. It might be one of these, or it might be something else:

['foot' !~ 'no']
['access' !~ 'no'];

@tkajstura @8f7162110d9eeaf907ab are you familiar with the correct tagging here?

In this instance, access “all” itself should remain yes, and foot should be “no”. Do not do this for the full road, but rather split the way into the portions that don’t allow for foot traffic.

@tim1 If you want someone to double check your edits, just drop me the link.

Thanks. Will have a go with Foot=No later.
As an aside how long does it typically take for OSM updates to make it here? I noticed 1 road with a node I need was already marked private but is also behind a locked “keycode” gate as mentioned.

There is currently no update feature for OSM>CS, but it is in the works. Your updates won’t be in vain, but it may take a while for them to make it up here. In the meantime, when I make updates such as marking something private, I just mark it manually complete in CS so the nodes don’t keep showing up on my lifemap.

1 Like

I think the current query explicitly excludes trunk roads. This part wasn’t in the initial query, so if @tim1’s city was one of the early imports it’s possible that that road will disappear once the map data is updated in CS, hard to tell without knowing the city.

I’ve run a few sections like that (70km/h, no shoulder), definitely not fun, can’t recommend.

Edit: it looks like the A3 is tagged highway = trunk, so it will be gone as a runnable street in CS with the map update, no editing in OSM required.

Noticed another issue here. In an OSM am looking at some of these gated dead-ends with nodes at the end can’t get to. Some have a gate symbol with “private” access and yet the road the gate sits on is marked as normal all access. Surely both should be private and is the fact that CityStrides is showing nodes “behind the gate” due to looking at the road status and ignoring the gate?

My guess is that when the streets were imported status of those streets was not set to private. After the import someone has changed it to real life situation

Just wondering if I should make those dead-end roads “private” as well as the gate which seems you can set access on as well. Clearly makes no sense to have a private gate guarding a public dead-end road!

Yes, mark the road as private as well. CS only imports OSM ways, so nodes (like gates) don’t get imported and there’s no way to know a road beyond a gate would be private unless the road is marked as private!

1 Like

Just in case this clarification is helpful:
The code collects all of the ways and their nodes for any way within a city border.
You’re correct that the code does not directly query for nodes, on their own.

Also related: New city imports do not include nodes outside of city borders, but older city imports did. I haven’t cleaned that data yet.