On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Nic Roets <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nroets@gmail.com">nroets@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Anthony <<a href="mailto:osm@inbox.org">osm@inbox.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Ideally, yes. But routing software can't possibly process the logic<br>
>> correctly in cases like these. Some roads may not have a pavement, but<br>
>> they are safe for pedestrians due to the lack of traffic. In other<br>
>> cases extreme footways should not be used because of crime.<br>
><br>
> What does lack of traffic matter? Unless you mean absolutely no traffic, I<br>
> don't think that makes much difference. If the road is unsafe to walk on,<br>
> I'm not going to walk down it whether there's 1 car a day or 10,000. If<br>
> there's a low enough speed limit maybe.<br>
<br>
</div>By that logic you should never leave your house. What if a storm<br>
suddenly appears and you get hit by lightning ?<br></blockquote><div><br>You seem to have missed the rest of my post. I was arguing that a road with no pavement but with a shoulder is *not* unsafe. OTOH, if the road has no shoulder, and traffic traveling at 55 mph, and only 1 car a day, I'm not walking down it.<br>
</div></div>