Hello, On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 6:08 PM Jens Glad Balchen <balc...@saint-etienne.no> wrote:
> > There are instances that you wouldn't want to include in your router. > E.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/658000911, which is similar > except there is no sidewalk=separate. Walking on this "sidewalk" is > probably prohibited, because to get to it, you have to pass a sign that > says no walking, except if you manage to cross a gated fence (at the > southern end). The "sidewalk" is probably for some other use, possibly > emergencies, possibly something else, possibly just a waste of space. > I'm not a big fan of this particular tagging because it is misleading > and confusing. > > I don't know how you would tell the difference, apart from the lack of > sidewalk=separate on the carriageway. > The way cited here is a highway=footway, and my dataset only includes the roadways themselves, not footway/cycleway, etc, by design and intent. In that case, there is an adjacent highway=trunk road ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/68648993) which is tagged foot=no, with no sidewalk tagging. In this case, my job is easy - the foot=no tells me that I should exclude that road, and since the nearby sidewalk is not actually accessible based on your description, it sounds like it's correctly tagged. This case is not a problem at all.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
