[Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 17.02.2019 um 21:57 schrieb Dave F via Tagging:
> I should have been clearer. I was indicating a case where foot=no 
> would be appropriate, but I should have stated there are also cases 
> where 'yes' or 'designated' are required. I'm still unsure why Tobias 
> W. thinks tracks shouldn't be queried at all yet residential roads 
> should.
>
> Don't misunderstand - I'm not advocating the use of the app. I'm 
> dubious about it's quality if Tobias Z. can spend "3+ years" 
> developing it, yet not read the wiki. This query should be retitled to 
> something like 'do pedestrians have legal access to this street?' 
> Hopefully that would deter users from adding either yes or no when 
> they're unsure which it is or even if it required at all.
>
> Cheers
> DaveF
>
> On 17/02/2019 19:44, Mark Wagner wrote:
>> Tracks are often "access=private" for everyone, so there's no reason to
>> call out foot access in particular.
>>
We are discussing a quest whose basis is the speculation that a 
sidewalk=none could also warrant a foot=no. I was thinking about how 
likely that is in different situations. And I think it is very unlikely 
for tracks. I don't think I have ever seen a track with a sidewalk so 
not having a sidewalk is pretty meaningless in regards to  being a 
candidate for this quest.

Tobias W-