On 14/02/2019 19:51, Tobias Zwick wrote: > This is, by the way, a bit of a different topic now, because the > thread was originally about tagging foot=yes on residential, not > whether foot=yes/no is limited to a *legal* access restriction.
I thought it was quite clear, for many years, that "foot=yes/no" refers *only* to legal restrictions? "foot" is a part of the "access" tag stuff, which has referred to "legal access" for 10+ years. > Let's be pragmatic: We don't tag things just because and also do not > live in clouds. So, why do we tag access restrictions at all? - (IMO) To record the *legal* restrictions. 🙂 > To be of use for routing and other use cases where it is relevant > whether something is accessible or not, simple as that. > The reason for it being (not) accessible is secondary Perhaps a confusion is caused by the OSM "access" key & the word "accessible". Not the same meaning. The wheelchair=yes/no does refer to physical access, not legal access. "foot" isn't like "wheelchair". If an app tells people that "foot=no" is for "no safe pedestrian access", that's a big fundamental change to a very influential tag. I would strongly advice against that. On 15/02/2019 01:59, Kevin Kenny wrote: > This comes partly from the fact that 'accessible' in the US appears > mostly in phrases such as 'accessible to the disabled', which connotes > affirmative provision for the group in question. It's same in Hiberno-English from Ireland, and I'm pretty sure Brit English. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
