[OSM-talk] cycle/footpath

[Lennard]

Robin Paulson wrote:

> while we're on the subject of convoluted tagging schemes for highways,
> i've always been intrigued by the following combinations, which seem
> to mean the same thing, but are clearly different:
> 
> highway=footway
> cycle=yes
> 
> highway=cycleway
> foot=yes
> 
> is there any difference between these two?

Yes, in the cases where I've used this way of tagging. The difference is 
in the signs used. The highway=footway;cycle=yes is mainly a footway and 
marked as such, but with a sub-sign saying 'cycling allowed'. This 
implies that the main users are pedestrians, and cyclists should take 
all due consideration to them, like not claiming the road. Cyclists are 
'guests'.

The other is actually the other way around. It's marked with a cyclists 
sign. You are allowed to walk on it (since there might not be a suitable 
  footpath or sidewalk/pavement nearby), but have to realise there are 
(fast) cyclists around. Often, the foot=yes is implicit, because 
pedestrians can go pretty much anywhere, like on cycleways if no 
pavement is present or even the main road if neither is present (at 
least in The Netherlands and Belgium). I'm using an explicit foot=yes if 
  the cycleway is not paired with a nearby pavement/footway, so the 
routers will know they can use it for pedestrians.

Now, what I'm curious about, and what came up in recent discussions on 
talk-be and #osm-nl, is how far the implicit foot=yes goes in both OSM 
in general, and current routers specifically.

Not every country has the same implicit access rules. For instance, in 
Belgium where a do-not-enter-for-drivers sign (round, white with red 
border) is used, with a sub-sign 'residents only', it is implicitly 
assumed that foot=yes (since pedestrians are not drivers, the sign does 
not apply to them), but also bicycle=yes;horse=yes, even though they're 
legally both drivers, and don't have to live on that street.

Currently, I would need to tag every such destination-only road in 
Belgium with: access=destination;foot=yes;bicycle=yes;horse=yes. Would 
it be possible in the future to mark such implicit nation-wide access=* 
rules for various types of road? So within Belgium, I could get away 
with the much easier access=destination and be done with it, unless 
there are explicit *=no access classes) ?

-- 
Lennard