[Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Rory McCann]

On 14/02/2019 19:51, Tobias Zwick wrote:
 > This is, by the way, a bit of a different topic now, because the
 > thread was originally about tagging foot=yes on residential, not
 > whether foot=yes/no is limited to a *legal* access restriction.

I thought it was quite clear, for many years, that "foot=yes/no" refers
*only* to legal restrictions? "foot" is a part of the "access" tag
stuff, which has referred to "legal access" for 10+ years.

 > Let's be pragmatic: We don't tag things just because and also do not
 > live in clouds. So, why do we tag access restrictions at all? -

(IMO) To record the *legal* restrictions. 🙂

 > To be of use for routing and other use cases where it is relevant
 > whether something is accessible or not, simple as that.
 > The reason for it being (not) accessible is secondary

Perhaps a confusion is caused by the OSM "access" key & the word
"accessible". Not the same meaning. The wheelchair=yes/no does refer to
physical access, not legal access. "foot" isn't like "wheelchair".

If an app tells people that "foot=no" is for "no safe pedestrian
access", that's a big fundamental change to a very influential tag. I
would strongly advice against that.

On 15/02/2019 01:59, Kevin Kenny wrote:
 > This comes partly from the fact that 'accessible' in the US appears
 > mostly in phrases such as 'accessible to the disabled', which connotes
 > affirmative provision for the group in question.

It's same in Hiberno-English from Ireland, and I'm pretty sure Brit English.