<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 22:08, Martin Koppenhoefer <<a href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
sent from a phone<br>
<br>
> On 6. May 2020, at 13:20, <a href="mailto:Lukas-458@web.de" target="_blank">Lukas-458@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> I agree with that, but then note that for "justice" we would need a foot:doorzone=yes, too, because when a sidewalk is in the parking car's doorzone (I think most sidewalks next to parking:lane=parallel are), there is hazard for pedestrians, too. It might be not soo dangerus because pedestrians have much lower speed than cyclists often have, but if we want to tag that hazard I think we would have to affect both, foot and bicycle.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
indeed there is much fewer risk for pedestrians and I would not tag it. Next thing would be to add hazards for roof tiles that may fly from roofs in case of storm? Snow sliding from roofs in winter? There may be many hazards if you think it through...<br>
;-)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree with Martin here, I don't think "foot:doorzone" is really needed as the concept only applies to bicycles.</div></div></div>