On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Nic Roets <nro...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Matt Williams <li...@milliams.com> wrote: > > The road should simply be marked as having no pavement/sidewalk. > > Something like pavement=yes/no is a start at least. It's best to avoid > > subject assessments like how dangerous a road is. > > Ideally, yes. But routing software can't possibly process the logic > correctly in cases like these. Some roads may not have a pavement, but > they are safe for pedestrians due to the lack of traffic. In other > cases extreme footways should not be used because of crime. >
What does lack of traffic matter? Unless you mean absolutely no traffic, I don't think that makes much difference. If the road is unsafe to walk on, I'm not going to walk down it whether there's 1 car a day or 10,000. If there's a low enough speed limit maybe. If you don't trust your own opinion, ask a few locals if they would > advise a tourist to walk there. If they say no, then tag them with > foot=no and add a note describing why you did it. > So because a few locals wouldn't advise a tourist to walk there you're going to tag the road equivalently to one that is illegal to walk on? I think we've gotta do better than that. I'd prefer the ambiguous foot=dangerous to foot=no. Especially if you're saying that high traffic + no pavement = dangerous (I've walked on plenty of roads with high traffic and no pavement - as long as they have a shoulder I wouldn't tag them as "foot=no, never, way too dangerous", I'd tag them as "foot=try to find a better route, but if you must, use caution". How about "foot=destination"? :) I'm kidding, but it'd be better (and more accurate) than foot=no.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
