Barrier in the middle of Großglockner Hochalpenstraße

[EN] At a planned round of Grossglockner (kurv.gr/F8hPT) a barrier emerges … between WP 6 and 7.
Since the ADAC confirms to me that the Grossglockner is freely passable, I have removed it.
Question: Is anyone allowed to do what he wants in OSM? Then maybe that’s the wrong basis - right?

[DE] Bei einer geplanten Großglockner-Runde (kurv.gr/F8hPT) taucht da eine Schranke auf … zwischen WP 6 und 7.
Da der ADAC mir bestätigt, dass der Großglockner frei befahrbar ist, habe ich sie entfernt.
Frage: Darf in OSM eigentlich jeder machen was er will? Dann ist das möglicherweise die falsche Basis - oder?

Please note, removing is not the right move, if there is actually a barrier. One should enter the access tags instead. We do have a documentation about this: https://docs.kurviger.de/web/faq/incorrect_routes#barriers

In the alps it happens often that barriers are on passes to block access to these roads if there is for example heavy snow on the road. So these barriers are there and should be in OSM. One should tag the correct access, for the winter gates, usually, it’s something like:

access=yes
access:conditional=no@snow (no@winter or if the dates are known, the exact dates)

In theory yes, but there are guidelines. Changes that are against these guidelines are usually quickly reverted by the community.

For example this OSM wiki page has some more information on this topic: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism

2 Likes

You can think about it like this: OSM should match reality. If there’s a gate, there’s a gate in OSM. But If you can confidently say that you put something in OSM that ist there in reality, then yeah, you’re allowed to edit to your heart’s content :slight_smile:

Robin, there was “access - all=yes” … now I learned from your documentation how to handle this … for the next time!

Thanks for the feedback. This might be related to this issue? The iD editor shows access for all = yes by default, but that tag is not specified.

2 Likes