[Tagging] Pedestrian access tagging

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 10:14 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> And that is exactly why using foot=yes/no for legal access is preferable.
>
> Different people will have different standards what counts as "reasonable
> for pedestrian use".
>

So, are you saying that this road has legal pedestrian access in Sweden?
That seems hard to believe.  How would I know from the tagging that I can't
send a pedestrian down this road?  Is additional tagging needed on this
road?:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/199230893
https://goo.gl/maps/HLrQxu5Dh83aCxsL9

Or is it more that in Sweden, all trunk roads have no pedestrian access as
a rule but this fact is apparently not documented anywhere that I've found
(not even in the abandoned defaults proposal)?

My assumption is that a road is passable by pedestrians unless there is
some kind of tagging that tells me otherwise.  If there are reliable rules
such as "in country X, this tag means no pedestrian access", that is an
annoying but perfectly workable rule from a router perspective.

Remember that highway=trunk/primary/etc tags are about a road's relative
importance and say absolutely nothing about the physical characteristics of
a road.

In many areas, including the Rhode Island example I gave, that particular
road is the ONLY access to certain residential areas to the rest of the
road network.  The question of pedestrian routability for those areas is
the difference between those residential areas being routable to the rest
of the world on foot, versus cut off from the outside world.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210123/44969e7a/attachment.htm>