[Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Volker Schmidt]

... and just to make this even trickier:
The access tag is (in most cases) about legal access, and not about
is-it-a-good-idea-to-route-a-pedestrian-along-this-road access.
That has to be underlined. In my part of the world most roads, even with a
lot of traffic and without sidewalk are legally open to pedestrians, but if
they take the road their chance of survival is low.
Add to the mix that, in my part of the world, almost all roads have no
sidewalk tag nor separate parallel footways, even if these are present.
I don't think it's a good idea to add foot=yes to underline what is already
the default. It would make more sense to tag foot=use_sidepath for those
cases where there is a sidewalk *and* pedestrians a legally required to use
it, and use, obviously, foot=no for those cases where there it is against
the law to walk on the street (for roads where the default is foot=yes)


On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 14:49, Tobias Zwick <osm at westnordost.de> wrote:

> I don't take dismissive and generalizing statements on a project I have
> been putting 3+ years of lifeblood into, invest much of my free time in
> and offer as open source for the betterment of OSM, lightly.
>
> If you have a concrete constructive suggestion to make, do it,
> otherwise, save your breath.
>
> Tobias
>
> On 14/02/2019 11:45, Wiklund Johan wrote:
> > I think that apps adding redundant tags to cover for a tiny number of
> special cases is going to cause more problems than it solves (i.e. users
> misinterpreting the question and adding "private" access to all kinds of
> roads). StreetBloat instead of StreetComplete :)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com]
> > Sent: torsdag 14. februar 2019 10.36
> > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
> tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential
> >
> >
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >
> >> On 14. Feb 2019, at 10:26, Florian Lohoff <f at zz.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled what
> >> this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to all roads.
> >
> >
> > I agree the default is accessibility for everyone on non-motorroad
> roads. There might be residential roads with private access (in the
> occasions I met where access was private I was tending towards service,
> although with general public access I would have called them residentials).
> >
> > Cheers, Martin
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190214/8caf8562/attachment.html>