Quote from: Radim V on December 30, 2022, 10:34:36@lor74cas - this denial of access is due to the access=no and foot=permissive character of a military road. It can be fixed and I make a remark for another round of profiles-fixes. But also this is a good example of a segment, where some kind of warning should be issued anyway. A military road can be closed (at least from OSM point of view) anytime. These warnings are something we started to consider.This military road is closed to unauthorized vehicles, access on foot is permitted.
At the time of the former Yugoslavia the border was very controlled, there were many military structures with dedicated access routes. Now the border is almost a memory but the roads and structures have remained. If these roads are not taken into account by the planner then the routes created in these places will not be usable.
I realize that we are in an uncommon situation compared to other places.
Many paths of our mountains are made following the route of the roads of the First World War, now they are also of tourist interest.
https://www.turismofvg.it/en/first-world-war?LangSetCMS=en
However, if these roads marked as military they will not be included in the planner routes and it is a pity.
I think this is the correct interpretation:
access=no (for vehicles)
and foot=permissive
if it was not possible to pass on foot then we would have
foot=no
I'm not very expert in mapping, I've contributed a few times to OSM, but from what I see the road I've reported has no military tag, only the name indicates that it's a military road:
access no
bicycle permissive
foot permissive
highway unclassified
max speed 50
motor_vehicle permit
name Monte Sabotino military road
surface asphalt
width 2.5
There is a special tag for military zones:
landuse military
Maybe these are the areas that could be left out as currently are from the planner.
The following users thanked this post: Viajero Perdido