[Tagging] Question reg. wheelchair mapping

[Tom Pfeifer]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2016/01/08 11:23:
>
> 2016-01-08 10:31 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis:
[...]
>     with highway=access_ramp (duck tagging) I indicate that the path was
>     designed for wheelchair users.
>
>     Don't I loose some information with
>
>     highway=footway, wheelchair=yes, incline=up ?
>
> Yes, some information is lost, because a footway, also an inclined one,
 > can be any kind of geometry (it can be older than current building standards
 > and not follow them), while a wheelchair ramp has to meet certain criteria,
 > especially if it's publicly accessible. But I don't think we should be
 > fragmentating the highway values for these either, in the end, it is a footway
 > (or maybe bicycles are allowed as well?). What about an additional attribute,
 > like wheelchair=ramp? Or wheelchair_ramp=yes? Btw., the
> tag highway=access_ramp doesn't specify that the ramp is built for wheelchairs.

+1 for keeping that a highway=footway with extra tags for the detail. I often walk
on them when they lead in my direction and the stairs don't, i.e. they should be
included in vanilla pedestrian routing.

As wheelchair=* is used with pretty wide definition range coming from wheelmaps.org,
I'd prefer the distinguished description with "wheelchair_ramp=yes".

And thanks Gerd btw for keeping an eye on those efforts of highway cleaning.

Gerd Petermann wrote on 2016/01/08 11:41:
 > Maybe highway=service,service=ramp would be better than highway=footway?

The beauty of having a separate tag for the ramp property is that is can be
applied to different highway types. If is is just as wide as a footway, tag
it footway, if trucks can use it, tag it service.

tom