I'm afraid countries differ with respect to legal imlications of sidewalk. This discussion, I've seen it 5 times now ande it never ends with consensus. It never ends at all.
Vr gr Peter Elderson Op ma 18 feb. 2019 om 00:49 schreef Dave F via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > As already stated, sidewalk is to indicate a physical object. Sidewalk > has no legal implications. 'Foot' is used purely to indicate legality. > > On 17/02/2019 22:29, Tobias Wrede wrote: > > Am 17.02.2019 um 20:44 schrieb Andy Townsend: > >> I don't think that a "global" encouragement to add foot=no makes > >> sense; there'll be lots of countries where it'd be silly. > >> > > I don't think the app "encourages" anything. In this quest the app > > merely speculates that the sidewalk=none could maybe warrant a foot=no > > and asks the user if that is the case. > > > > As others and I have pointed out this speculation is not so > > ill-founded for some situations (e. g. bridges, tunnels) but overdoes > > it for the standard roads out there. > > > > Tobias W > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
