That is definitely possible, I assume that osm.org/way/935533403 requires the same treatment then.

All I know is that this was an actual wel maintained path, with a compacted dirt surface, right next to a field and I didn't see any fences or signage or anything.
But I guess permissive could be the right way to go. For most routeplanners this should be considered as accessible anyway

Okay, should be fixed now

"It's clearly not a building passage , even not a pedestrian , yes it's indoor but it's a indoor footway , open when the amenites insides are open, and the layout is not like that."

So the indoor tag is more correct than what it was before which was my intention. It might still not be perfect but in my opinion it's not a bad idea to improve something even though it might still not be perfect?

Because wandrer doesn't look at the tunnel=building_passage tag and this is also a valid tag that is definitely true in this case. I don't see the issue with having two tags that support eachother?

osm.wiki/Key:indoor

The west side are indeed entrances to the house, but I assumed just like we don't map every other entrance to a house in OSM this wasn't actually supposed to be there.

The east side and north side are really just a garden for this building, but I guess since it is behind a fence it could become a private path instead. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

On the north it was a plain fence, no gate at all. So the connection between north and west was definitely wrong.

Is this not private ? It seems to be behind gates that are not publicly accesible

see osm.org/changeset/162043346#map=17/50.896326/4.311062&layers=D

The reason I did this, is because of wandrer, an osm based tool that tracks all the roads you have visited. And in the current situation there are 4 parallel roads that are all accessible, while in reality there are just 2.

I'll try to adjust the situation so that the routing over the roundabout still work

okay added it

the situation under the bridge has a maximum height of 3m while the rest of the road doesn't have that restriction so they must be seperated

There have never been signs saying that these roads were oneway (at least google maps confirms this for 2020 and 2022). Also the existing oneway tags didn't allow cars to exit this neighborhoud as there were only entry roads...

There are C3 signs "uitzonderlijk plaatselijk verkeer" which means a car can only drive these roads when he needs it as a destination. This does have effects on routing, in the sense that these roads won't be taken as a shortcut, but I don't see how these are undesirable?

Oke, maar als ik het goed begrijp is het wel oke om turn restrictions toe te voegen van de grote baan op de kleine baantjes ernaast, maar omgekeerd dus niet

Ik heb de maxspeed terug aangepast. Het lijkt me wel vrij duidelijk dat het niet de bedoeling is dat je met de auto daarover zou rijden. We kregen anders gekke voorstellen in de routeplanner