Robin Paulson wrote:
> while we're on the subject of convoluted tagging schemes for highways,
> i've always been intrigued by the following combinations, which seem
> to mean the same thing, but are clearly different:
>
> highway=footway
> cycle=yes
>
> highway=cycleway
> foot=yes
>
> is there any difference between these two?
Yes, in the cases where I've used this way of tagging. The difference is
in the signs used. The highway=footway;cycle=yes is mainly a footway and
marked as such, but with a sub-sign saying 'cycling allowed'. This
implies that the main users are pedestrians, and cyclists should take
all due consideration to them, like not claiming the road. Cyclists are
'guests'.
The other is actually the other way around. It's marked with a cyclists
sign. You are allowed to walk on it (since there might not be a suitable
footpath or sidewalk/pavement nearby), but have to realise there are
(fast) cyclists around. Often, the foot=yes is implicit, because
pedestrians can go pretty much anywhere, like on cycleways if no
pavement is present or even the main road if neither is present (at
least in The Netherlands and Belgium). I'm using an explicit foot=yes if
the cycleway is not paired with a nearby pavement/footway, so the
routers will know they can use it for pedestrians.
Now, what I'm curious about, and what came up in recent discussions on
talk-be and #osm-nl, is how far the implicit foot=yes goes in both OSM
in general, and current routers specifically.
Not every country has the same implicit access rules. For instance, in
Belgium where a do-not-enter-for-drivers sign (round, white with red
border) is used, with a sub-sign 'residents only', it is implicitly
assumed that foot=yes (since pedestrians are not drivers, the sign does
not apply to them), but also bicycle=yes;horse=yes, even though they're
legally both drivers, and don't have to live on that street.
Currently, I would need to tag every such destination-only road in
Belgium with: access=destination;foot=yes;bicycle=yes;horse=yes. Would
it be possible in the future to mark such implicit nation-wide access=*
rules for various types of road? So within Belgium, I could get away
with the much easier access=destination and be done with it, unless
there are explicit *=no access classes) ?
--
Lennard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
