[Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 17:29 2022-12-18, Zeke Farwell đã viết:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 6:33 PM Minh Nguyen 
> <minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us 
> <mailto:minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us>> wrote:
> 
>     Vào lúc 15:00 2022-12-18, Zeke Farwell đã viết:
>      > I'll try to answer the original question as succinctly as
>     possible.  As
>      > I understand it, the combination foot=no + sidewalk=separate means
>      > walking is not allowed at all on this street and the sidewalk
>     belonging
>      > to this street is mapped as a separate way.  Since the sidewalk
>     belongs
>      > to the street, foot=no applies to it as well.  It must be a sidewalk
>      > where walking is not allowed since walking is not allowed
>     anywhere on
>      > this street.
> 
>     Does any router actually interpret access tags as you're describing?
> 
>     It seems like quite a stretch that a router would automatically infer a
>     sidewalk's access tags from some parallel roadway,
> 
> 
> Perhaps I should not have aimed for brevity.  I would not expect a 
> router or any other data consumer to infer access tags from a parallel 
> way.  In my theoretical sidewalk where walking is not allowed I would 
> expect the separately mapped sidewalk way to also be tagged with 
> foot=no.  In case it's not clear, I mean this as a joke and I don't 
> expect this would actually be sensible tagging anywhere, but who knows.  
> Essentially I'm just saying I don't think putting foot=no on the main 
> roadway when sidewalks are mapped separately is helpful.  Just tag 
> sidewalk=separate.

Joke's on me then! :-D

If foot=no is problematic for use cases like the one that Brian 
described, then foot=use_sidepath would be more precise for saying, "No 
feet *here*, but see also: separate sidewalk."

-- 
minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us