[Talk-GB] Legally permitted vs inadvisable

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hmm. Had forgotten that I had asked that.


Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 8 Mar 2017, at 11:34, Dan S <danstowell+osm at gmail.com<mailto:danstowell+osm at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi

foot=no would definitely be inappropriate! It would mean not permitted.

This is basically the same as the "Mapping dangerous - but valid -
routes" question that you asked in December, and the responses to that
are relevant here.

Best
Dan


2017-03-08 11:27 GMT+00:00 Stuart Reynolds <stuart at travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stuart at travelinesoutheast.org.uk>>:
What’s the thinking about tagging foot=no along busy dual carriageways?
Specifically I would like to remove a walk from a stretch of the A2 near
Barham in Kent where there are bus stops, but no footways along the verge
(and indeed very little in the way of verge at some points). It is
technically legal to walk along the A2 from the junction to the south, but
it is most certainly not advisable and you would be taking your life into
your hands if you did so.

BTW, access to the northbound bus stop is via a footpath through the woods.
Technically the southbound one is accessed via a footpath across a break in
the crash barriers - but we don’t have that on OSM, and I’m not about to add
it in.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/26237116#map=18/51.21188/1.16626

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20170308/1d86fc98/attachment-0001.html>