[Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Jens Glad Balchen]

On 18.12.2022 23:11, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
> Currently taking bets on how long it will take before someone actually 
> answers the question I posed 😂
>

Seems to me, in the situation described, and with the tagging instances 
in Texas I could find, the tagging is accurate, in that it shows:

1. you're not allowed to walk on the carriageway (the way in question)
2. there is a sidewalk
3. the sidewalk is tagged separately
4. the sidewalk way does not have foot=no

So walking on this way is not allowed, but there is another way that you 
can walk on, and it's really close and should follow approximately the 
same geometry. It seems to me you can include this in your dataset.

As to the principle of sidewalk-like structures where walking is 
genuinely prohibited, I would say tagging that as a sidewalk would be 
incorrect. It looks like a duck, but it's probably something else.

There are instances that you wouldn't want to include in your router. 
E.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/658000911, which is similar 
except there is no sidewalk=separate. Walking on this "sidewalk" is 
probably prohibited, because to get to it, you have to pass a sign that 
says no walking, except if you manage to cross a gated fence (at the 
southern end). The "sidewalk" is probably for some other use, possibly 
emergencies, possibly something else, possibly just a waste of space. 
I'm not a big fan of this particular tagging because it is misleading 
and confusing.

I don't know how you would tell the difference, apart from the lack of 
sidewalk=separate on the carriageway.

Jens