Vào lúc 15:00 2022-12-18, Zeke Farwell đã viết:
I'll try to answer the original question as succinctly as possible. As
I understand it, the combination foot=no + sidewalk=separate means
walking is not allowed at all on this street and the sidewalk belonging
to this street is mapped as a separate way. Since the sidewalk belongs
to the street, foot=no applies to it as well. It must be a sidewalk
where walking is not allowed since walking is not allowed anywhere on
this street.
Does any router actually interpret access tags as you're describing?
It seems like quite a stretch that a router would automatically infer a
sidewalk's access tags from some parallel roadway, not least for the
reason that we lack an established method to associate the sidewalk with
the way. [1] (sidewalk=separate refers to a sidewalk way, but there's
nothing in the other direction.) It would be something of a first for
OSM that you could download a complete extract within a certain bbox,
including any relation memberships, and the footways along the edges of
this bbox could be subject to a tag that hasn't been downloaded yet.
Compounding matters, there are places where cyclists are prohibited from
using sidewalks and other places where cyclists are required to use
sidewalks when present. What should a router do if somehow it is able to
determine the parallel roadway and finds a bicycle=no on it? What other
access keys of the unconnected roadway are relevant to routing on a
sidewalk? What about other things that are "part of the street", such as
busways?
[1] https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/6255
--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
