Runnymede Roundabout
  • Hi, when navigating along the A30 in Runnymede to the Egham By-Pass Via the Runnymede roundabout, the navigator says to take exit 3, when actually you need to take the second exit.

    The problem appears to be caused by a service road which leads into the center of the roundabout

    Does anyone know how to fix this error?

    Cheers, Ian
  • 17 Comments sorted by
  • I do not agree at all. Service roads belong to the routing, especially for people who do need to use these service roads. These roads are specially for them. If I'm a service man and I'm not local, I need to be able to get there.
    Do NOT modify correct OSM data just because you think it is illogical.
    It would be the same as removing cycle paths because you can't use them as a driver and you get confused because you see two "roads" but you can't use one road.
  • I agree with hvdwolf. You need to ascertain the use of the road before making changes. Once you've done that you can use the restrictions tab to add further detail. eg If it is for private use then choose that from the the list in the restriction drop down boxes.
  • Can you give coordinates?
    The simple fact that it tells you to take the the 3rd exit doesn't mean it's wrong simply because you are not allowed to take the service road.

    If you advance a split road and behind it another road, and MNF telly you to take the second exit: will you take the right road of that split road (assuming you drive left in England), instead of the following road?
    I don't think so.
  • Hi haylocki - this can be fixed in Openstreetmap. Yes, this is a very strange situation and can be very confusing. Do you know what this road is used for? Neither Goole Maps nor Here show it in their map.

    @mapfactor team - if we change it to track...will it still count it as an exit if the "other road" is not checked in the road restrictions?

    I assume we're talking about this one, united #map=19/51.43604/-0.53784
  • I did not want to modify it without understanding it...that's why I asked haylocki whether he knows what this road is about....the road categorization in OSM is often wrong...
  • Please have a look at this bing  image:

    The fact that both Here and Google Maps don't have it, doesn't mean that it is incorrect. What's more: with Google Maps in Satellite view you can see it:

    It looks like it is unpaved, but I can not clearly see that from both satellite views. If it is unpaved you could tag it like that.
    if you have in your settings to not use unpaved roads, it might possibly not mention it anymore (but I doubt it)

  • Looks like it is paved, but I'm not sure this road is large enough for a car. And there might be access restrictions. I opened a note on OSM for local mappers to check that and do fixing if needed. 
  • In Google Street view it looks like an access track for grass cutting or tree maintenance vehicles.
  • That's exactly what I thought. I assume the local city maintenance crew needs to occasionally mow the grass and prune the hedges, trees and shrubs.
  • if that's the case...then it needs to be tagged with an access restriction so it's clear for the navigation software that this can not be used as an exit for regular traffic
  • This is also what a OSM user replied to my note:

    He says that access=private would probably be fine, but I'd rather go to access=no as this means "no access to the general public" while this roundabout is unlikely to be private (
  • access=no should be alright in this case

    The access=no tag indicates that the road is not to be used by the general public
  • access=private fits better here. From wiki access=no: "The access=no tag indicates that the road is not to be used by the general public, with stronger interdiction than the access=private tag. An example would be access roads into military or government facilities."
  • None of them is perfect actually. The place is public but the restriction enforcement is not strong (nobody is going to fire at you). "Discouraged" wouldn't fit either. "Destination" could be discussed: should a vehicle have valid reasons to go there it may go there".

    So it's a question of meaning: "no but why"? Here, this is just because this place is not supposed to receive traffic but maintenance vehicles even though it is a public place.
  • access=no is correct.
    access=private is incorrect in this case, even though it is used sometimes like that. private is really meant for "private" as in "owned by a private person".
    This specific roundabout and "road" does not belong to some citizen having a long driveway to his mansion, it is really for the government or local authorities. therefore it is access=no

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion