Tough one to crack - within motorway services

Just perusing what I will need to tackle at some point now almost got to 50% of my city.

Now this one https://citystrides.com/streets/10774154 caught me eye for several reasons.

This is Cobham Services on the M25 motorway near London.
Can only get here by car unless I climb a very high fence from an adjacent road.

But the distribution of the nodes seems very odd with many of them basically in the fields outside the actual boundary of the services. In fact I can’t see one that is actually located over Tarmac!

AFAIK nobody lives here so I do try and do it - some of the nodes look like high chance of being flattened by lorries pulling onto the motorway but might be a “nice” perimeter route…

DO NOT TRY TO RUN THIS
there are some OpenStreetMap edits that are required to make this accurate

4 Likes

Ah is there something I should do on OSM then?

Add the tag foot=no to all non-runnable sections of this road.

3 Likes

Just one tiny problem, it’s not a street, but a servicearea ?!
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=17/51.30520/-0.40952

Not sure how it even got imported.

Just mark it manually completed.

Another option might be to exclude highway = services in the query and to mark it manually completed in the meantime

I have marked it as manually completed. Not sure what if anything I can do on OSM. I think there might be some sort of walking trail there as is a hotel on site and you might fancy a stroll but no obvious activity on Strava. One I think that meets my rule of thumb - for manual - been there but running it was not possible.

I just found a similar Services in my city, I can’t find anywhere on OSM to tag it as foot=no.
@JamesChevalier is there another way we can tag them for them to disappear in the future? Or is highway = services ok as suggested above?

Just rechecking “my” one then the nodes in CS are based off the boundary of the entire “Service Area” in OSM and not the roads within them which is clearly wrong for CS as you end with nodes essentially in a field to the outside of any roads or pretty much on the slip roads from the motorway/highway/freeway (take your pick). I don’t think Foot=No is really correct for the roads within the Service area as you have to park your car where you can and then walk to get inside the actual service buildings so some walking is clearly essential. Whatever makes no sense to have nodes inside somewhere you cannot get to or exit except in a car or similar. That’s aside from being potentially very dangerous trying to run here.

I misunderstood the original question… I’ve since looked closely at the map.
highway=services (note the “s”) should simply be excluded from the city query. It’s a boundary, not a street. The other streets within the service area don’t have names, so no worries there.

Edit: highway=rest_area should get excluded also.

1 Like

just bumping this issue, please put highway=services (note the “s”) on the exclusion list. I have several resting area’s along highways that are visible as not completed

:+1:
I’ve just updated my query with that & a few others. I updated the spreadsheet linked from About the Node, Street, and City Data ( direct link ).

@petje:
Deze 2 tankstations staan in de lijst van de te lopen straten in Assen (ook na een zeer recente update):


Ik heb het vermoeden dat deze niet goed getagd staan in OSM. Highway=service (zonder s) zie ik staan als tag, maar de optie highway=services (met s) kan ik niet vinden of geeft een foutmelding. Weet jij waar in OSM ik dit moet aanpassen?

Ik zie het, er is een services area om het gebied getekend. Maar ook de straten daarin hebben dezelfde naam gekregen. Je zou in OSM de straatnamen kunnen verwijderen. Het gebied is al genoemd als services area. Bij andere autoweg tankstations zie ik het op die manier. foot=no zou niet kloppen