Hi Tobias,
why not use foot=use_sidepath and/or sidewalk=no? In combination with
hw=primary/secondary, routers should be able to work out that that route
is a bad one.
Also OT the city should declare that tunnel a motorroad, or put up signs
disallowing pedestrians and bicycle riders (and horses), like opposite
direction
<https://www.google.de/maps/@50.9401298,6.9532164,3a,75y,354.53h,97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-BF_bbPXwIa2GD2DghRJZQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656>
of your first example.
Also people using routers should apply common sense, too. Or stay at home.
Hubert87
Am 15.02.2019 um 13:20 schrieb Tobias Wrede:
Am 15.02.2019 um 11:54 schrieb Rory McCann:
On 14/02/2019 19:51, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> 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
Unfortunately, the legal situation is not always as clear as we wish
to. There are a lot of grey zones and we need to apply common sense
when tagging the access rules.
Here are a few situations where I would not hesitate to put a foot=no
on the road even if there is no corresponding traffic sign.
Pedestrians can take the level footpaths/sidewalks instead taking the
underpass:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6187386#map=18/50.94224/6.95277.
There is no signage forbidding foot traffic.
(https://www.google.de/maps/@50.9444478,6.9530483,3a,60y,190.35h,87.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQMNheDoeod1aqNAV9jAkzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Tobias' example: One big crossing. Pedestrians ought to take the foot
ways on the perimeter:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188015318#map=19/53.54798/10.00603
(https://www.google.de/maps/place/Deichtorpl.,+Hamburg/@53.5464444,10.0054334,194a,35y,39.47t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x47b18ee36713d14d:0x9845b5555ddee686!8m2!3d53.5477326!4d10.0057289)
Pedestrians ought to take the bridge here. There are no traffic lights
for pedestrians but there is no signage either forbidding pedestrians:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/258669865#map=19/51.03936/7.05248
By German law you are required to use footpaths if they exists on the
road. In these examples there are no footpaths on the roads so you
should be able to use the carriageways. But is that what the planners
intended and would it make sense at all?
I am with you regarding cases where some mappers might just tag a road
foot=no if they feel it is too dangerous for the pedestrians or too
unnerving for the car drivers and where there is no real designated
alternative. We shouldn't do that.
Tobias
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
