[Routing] Funny gosmore artifact

[Lambertus]

Philip Homburg wrote:
> In your letter dated Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:35:12 +0200 you wrote:
>> Philip Homburg wrote:
>>> Consistent, yes. Whether it makes any sense, I don't know. Allowing pedestri
>> ans
>>> on trunk roads be not on cycling paths or on a bridleway doesn't make much
>>> sense to me.
>> It may not make sense to you (and neither to me) but this is how things 
>> are at present. I could ofcourse just set another 'standard' with my 
>> site but that won't help OSM in general. Having people seriously 
>> thinking about proper tagging is one of my goals when I started it.
> 
> It's not clear to me how much thought went into that default access
> restrictions page. 
> 
> I wonder how many 'casual' mappers are going to take the trouble to add
> 'food=yes' to all cyclepaths, just because some random person they don't
> know decided on a weird default?
> 
I'd suggest to start a discussion on the talk pages or on the 
mailinglist. Or just update the wiki page and see what happens.

I've added foot=yes to all cycleways in my hometown just recently for 
the same reasons as you stated before. These tags will be correct even 
when pedestrians are allowed on cycleways by default so I see no problem 
in adding them. It's more work for a mapper though...