[Tagging] Pedestrian access tagging

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I have not changed definition at all.

I only mmetioned that explicit tags may be more useful than expected.


Jan 25, 2021, 14:06 by voschix at gmail.com:

> Please do not change definition of widely-used tags.
> This creates only confusion. highway=motorway has to stay without changes. The correct way is to invite mappers to explicitly add foot|bicycle=yes in well-defined areas only.
>
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021, 13:37 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging, <> tagging at openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jan 25, 2021, 01:02 by >> baloo at ursamundi.org>> :
>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 5:07 PM Brian M. Sperlongano <>>> zelonewolf at gmail.com>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> The wiki definition for highway=motorway says that foot=no (and others) are implied. 
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, it might be time for the wiki to revisit that position since it varies enough to say that you should always tag the explicit mode access where known.
>>>  
>>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway#Implied_values
>>
>> I added:
>>
>>
>> In some places areas some highway=motorway allow cyclists and pedestrians (on a shoulder).
>> It means that explicit foot=no, bicycle=no, shoulder=yes may be useful even if seemingly obvious[1].
>>
>> [1] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2021-January/thread.html#58857>>  - about 
>> pedestrian access on major roads, includes discussion of feasibility, legality and sanity of 
>> pedestrian traffic on roads, up to and including motorways and revealed that explicit tagging of 
>> pedestrian access may be useful even on motorways
>> _______________________________________________
>>  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/20210125/c20be029/attachment.htm>