Hi, The tagging that I cited was from Texas in the USA. In that location, it is illegal to walk in the roadway (where the cars go), but there was a separate sidewalk where pedestrians are supposed to walk. However, my software works globally so I'm trying to understand how that `sidewalk=separate` + `foot=no` combination should be interpreted on a global basis, or if I should just ignore those combinations as a tagging error.
So the situation is: 1. There is a sidewalk, and it's mapped separately 2. The road is tagged sidewalk=separate + foot=no 3. It's illegal to walk in the road itself because there is a sidewalk (state law in that area) On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 4:22 PM Ivo Reano <reano...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't know in your area if all pedestrians who use the streets just > because they don't have a car are punished. > In Italy, only motorways and some major traffic routes are formally > "forbidden" to pedestrian transit. > If I found a foot=yes on a street, simply to indicate that one should not > walk in the middle of the street, I would delete that tag (and send a > message to the user asking what he meant). > It seems obvious to me that if I walk on a road I keep to the left (excuse > non-Anglo-Saxons, but this is the preferred direction for pedestrians on > driveways in the rest of the world). > While if I'm on a road with no traffic (not flat) I mostly walk on the > downhill side. > In short: if there isn't a sidewalk, and the street isn't reserved for > vehicles (but where do you live?) foot=no it seems absurd to me, or rather > wrong. > > Ivo, Jrachi > > Il giorno dom 18 dic 2022 alle ore 22:05 <cyton_...@web.de> ha scritto: > >> Yes, only if the local legislation infers that pedestrians have to use a >> (usually car) road-accompanying sidewalk. >> >> Also, your project reminds me of wandrer.earth, where craig also >> introduced a way for running to track ran ways, not only for cyclists. >> Though i only use it for cycling. >> >> -- >> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android Mobiltelefon mit WEB.DE Mail >> gesendet. >> Am 18.12.22, 21:47 schrieb "Brian M. Sperlongano" <zelonew...@gmail.com>: >> >>> Thanks Cyton. >>> >>> Just to be clear, I'm only talking about automobile roads - >>> highway=trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified/residential. >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 3:41 PM <cyton_...@web.de> wrote: >>> >>>> If and only if there is a separately mapped sidewalk. >>>> Sidewalk=separate means there needs to be such a way. >>>> However i would tag foot=use_sidepath, which means the same as foot=no >>>> but also indicates the existence of a separate way usable for routing. >>>> And only if the highway is a streets centerline, not a cycleway or >>>> other. >>>> >>>> Cyton >>>> Am 18.12.22, 21:32 schrieb "Brian M. Sperlongano" <zelonew...@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> I am the author of a data consumer which generates a list of streets >>>>> that are accessible to walkers and joggers. The idea is that a user would >>>>> have a map of the streets in their town and can challenge themselves to >>>>> walk/jog down every street, and they can look at statistics on which >>>>> streets they've completed. I use a 25-meter rule, so if a user can walk >>>>> along the shoulder, or on a sidewalk/pavement, or in the verge, that's >>>>> acceptable. >>>>> >>>>> I recently came across an unexpected tagging combination and I would >>>>> like to understand how folks in various places would interpret this: >>>>> >>>>> highway=<whatever> >>>>> foot=no >>>>> sidewalk=separate >>>>> >>>>> In my software's logic, I've made the assumption that foot=* applies >>>>> to "the whole of the road" including the roadway, shoulders, verge, >>>>> sidewalks, and so forth and thus excluded any roads that include that tag, >>>>> regardless of other tagging. I came to understand that this tagging was >>>>> used by a mapper to indicate that "pedestrians are not allowed on the >>>>> roadway, however, they are allowed on the sidewalk" >>>>> >>>>> Would folks regard that as accurate data modeling? I.e. should I >>>>> change my software to treat streets tagged in this way as >>>>> pedestrian-accessible, or would folks regard this combination as a tagging >>>>> error? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
