Vào lúc 17:29 2022-12-18, Zeke Farwell đã viết:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 6:33 PM Minh Nguyen
<m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
<mailto:m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us>> wrote:
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,
Perhaps I should not have aimed for brevity. I would not expect a
router or any other data consumer to infer access tags from a parallel
way. In my theoretical sidewalk where walking is not allowed I would
expect the separately mapped sidewalk way to also be tagged with
foot=no. In case it's not clear, I mean this as a joke and I don't
expect this would actually be sensible tagging anywhere, but who knows.
Essentially I'm just saying I don't think putting foot=no on the main
roadway when sidewalks are mapped separately is helpful. Just tag
sidewalk=separate.
Joke's on me then! :-D
If foot=no is problematic for use cases like the one that Brian
described, then foot=use_sidepath would be more precise for saying, "No
feet *here*, but see also: separate sidewalk."
--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
