[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

Markus selfishseahorse at gmail.com
Wed Nov 20 10:33:15 UTC 2019

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 04:24, Clifford Snow <clifford at snowandsnow.us> wrote:
> First off I like this proposal and agree that it be applied more broadly. However there is a difference between a motorway=link (and similar) and a footway=link. A motorway=link is a physical feature unlike a footway=link. A footway=link is more of an attempt to bridge vector representation of a footway and how it connects to a vector representation of a road. In reality, they are adjacent features. If highways=* were drawn as areas, we wouldn't need a footway link but still need a motorway=link. Then there is the question of how footway=link should be rendered. I would be happy with a dashed gray line to indicate that it's just a connection for a router.

You're right, the value "link" isn't optimal as it can lead to
confusion with highway=*_link roads. What alternative value should we
choose? footway=connection?

More information about the Tagging mailing list