[Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Hubert87]

Hi Tobias,

why not use foot=use_sidepath and/or sidewalk=no? In combination with 
hw=primary/secondary, routers should be able to work out that that route 
is a bad one.
Also OT the city should declare that tunnel a motorroad, or put up signs 
disallowing pedestrians and bicycle riders (and horses), like opposite 
direction 
<https://www.google.de/maps/@50.9401298,6.9532164,3a,75y,354.53h,97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-BF_bbPXwIa2GD2DghRJZQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656> 
of your first example.
Also people using routers should apply common sense, too. Or stay at home.

Hubert87


Am 15.02.2019 um 13:20 schrieb Tobias Wrede:
> Am 15.02.2019 um 11:54 schrieb Rory McCann:
>> On 14/02/2019 19:51, Tobias Zwick wrote:
>>
>> > 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
>
> Unfortunately, the legal situation is not always as clear as we wish 
> to. There are a lot of grey zones and we need to apply common sense 
> when tagging the access rules.
>
> Here are a few situations where I would not hesitate to put a foot=no 
> on the road even if there is no corresponding traffic sign.
>
> Pedestrians can take the level footpaths/sidewalks instead taking the 
> underpass: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6187386#map=18/50.94224/6.95277. 
> There is no signage forbidding foot traffic. 
> (https://www.google.de/maps/@50.9444478,6.9530483,3a,60y,190.35h,87.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQMNheDoeod1aqNAV9jAkzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
>
> Tobias' example: One big crossing. Pedestrians ought to take the foot 
> ways on the perimeter: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188015318#map=19/53.54798/10.00603 
> (https://www.google.de/maps/place/Deichtorpl.,+Hamburg/@53.5464444,10.0054334,194a,35y,39.47t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x47b18ee36713d14d:0x9845b5555ddee686!8m2!3d53.5477326!4d10.0057289) 
>
>
> Pedestrians ought to take the bridge here. There are no traffic lights 
> for pedestrians but there is no signage either forbidding pedestrians: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/258669865#map=19/51.03936/7.05248
>
> By German law you are required to use footpaths if they exists on the 
> road. In these examples there are no footpaths on the roads so you 
> should be able to use the carriageways. But is that what the planners 
> intended and would it make sense at all?
>
> I am with you regarding cases where some mappers might just tag a road 
> foot=no if they feel it is too dangerous for the pedestrians or too 
> unnerving for the car drivers and where there is no real designated 
> alternative. We shouldn't do that.
>
> Tobias
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190215/3ec59cd9/attachment.html>