<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Jan 24, 2021, 17:20 by zelonewolf@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>Take a look again at the Sweden example.<br></div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://goo.gl/maps/HLrQxu5Dh83aCxsL9" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/maps/HLrQxu5Dh83aCxsL9</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Without knowing anything about Swedish law, it's clear that the road is physically inaccessible to pedestrians, and any pedestrian router that routes over it would be in error. The question of whether or not a pedestrian can be routed down this particular road, the answer of which is obvious to any human, should not be a complex AI problem. There are really not very many applications that care about the distinction between "legally prohibited" and "physical impossibility" - whether the outcome is being arrested or becoming a hood ornament, the answer for nearly every application is the same. The purity test that people seem to want to apply to foot=no results in tagging that is less useful for real applications in the real world. Commenters are using the term "suitability" as if cases like this example are some kind of gray scale that a pedestrian may or may not find acceptable based on preference.<br></div><div><br></div><div>My application will be fine here, and I consider the problem "solved" from a pedestrian router perspective. I tell my users which combinations of tags I consider to be "not accessible to runners/joggers" and they can go duke it out in the map as they see fit.<br></div></div></blockquote><div>Less obvious case:<br></div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://www.google.com/maps/@50.1034496,19.8589999,3a,75y,288.55h,86.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6BWtJ1yclaFBjqF1BSOkZA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656">https://www.google.com/maps/@50.1034496,19.8589999,3a,75y,288.55h,86.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6BWtJ1yclaFBjqF1BSOkZA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656</a><br></div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/50.1050/19.8562" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/50.1050/19.8562</a><br></div><div><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27150436">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27150436</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Not sure what is the legal status of pedestrian traffic, you could walk on<br></div><div>grass along it without huge risk and in some (extrtemely unusal[0]) cases it is actually <br></div><div>optimal route for pedestrians...<br></div><div><br></div><div>I would say that it is not foot=no despite being nearly the same.<br></div><div><br></div><div>sidewalk=no + tagging for missing shoulder is probably optimal<br></div><div>(no tagging for now as there are roadworks there, maybe shoulder or sidewalk construction)<br></div><div><br></div><div>[0] <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=50.1013%2C19.8609%3B50.1065%2C19.8502#map=16/50.1026/19.8604">https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=50.1013%2C19.8609%3B50.1065%2C19.8502#map=16/50.1026/19.8604</a><br></div> </body>
</html>