On 2019-02-18 15:58, Dave F via Tagging wrote:
>> Different tagging will not remove the non-consensus.
>
> What consensus will it remove? Misunderstanding the meaning of a tag is not
> consensual. Different tags allows the specifying of varying objects/attributes
(not removing) (the non consens
As stated previously the sidewalk tag has no legal implication. The
question within the app needs amending to clarify that's it's the
legality of walking along the road that's being queried, not the ease or
dangerousness.
Cheers
DaveF
On 18/02/2019 12:05, Tobias Wrede wrote:
Am 18.02.2019 um
On 18/02/2019 08:33, Peter Elderson wrote:
Different tagging will not remove the non-consensus.
What consensus will it remove? Misunderstanding the meaning of a tag is
not consensual. Different tags allows the specifying of varying
objects/attributes
Non-conflation is unrealistic.
That c
Am 18.02.2019 um 00:48 schrieb Dave F via Tagging:
As already stated, sidewalk is to indicate a physical object. Sidewalk
has no legal implications. 'Foot' is used purely to indicate legality.
So? I don't think this is disputed.
The reasoning here is that the absence of a sidewalk in some situ
Because this is about foot=no, not handcart=no
On February 17, 2019 11:23:46 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
>sent from a phone
>
>> On 17. Feb 2019, at 22:39, Tobias Zwick wrote:
>>
>> No, that tag is correct. It is not allowed to walk in the tunnel,
>> because the tunnel is stil
Different tagging will not remove the non-consensus. Non-conflation is
unrealistic.
(wow, 5 negs in a row, respect!)
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 18 feb. 2019 om 01:45 heeft Dave F via Tagging
> het volgende geschreven:
>
> True. Primarily because there's a false conflation of meanings, such as
>
>> We also need to apply common sense when mapping.
>
>
>yes. Although common sense is not a criterion for legal access. This is
>either allowed or forbidden, and unless it is forbidden, access is by
>default allowed on roads.
I fear common sense in fact somehow IS a legal criterion. Lawyers a
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 18:07, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> highway=*
> tunnel=yes
> sidewalk=no
> and a significant length
+1 on this. I would expect a pedestrian router to apply a scoring
penalty to highways with sidewalk=no or sidewalk=separate, and with
the help of this scoring choose the foot
True. Primarily because there's a false conflation of meanings, such as
yours. That there are laws in certain countries around the world is
irrelevant. *Within* OSM that tag has no legality implied. A different
tag would be required to map what you suggest.
Cheers
DaveF.
On 18/02/2019 00:30,
I'm afraid countries differ with respect to legal imlications of sidewalk.
This discussion, I've seen it 5 times now ande it never ends with
consensus. It never ends at all.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op ma 18 feb. 2019 om 00:49 schreef Dave F via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> As already st
As already stated, sidewalk is to indicate a physical object. Sidewalk
has no legal implications. 'Foot' is used purely to indicate legality.
On 17/02/2019 22:29, Tobias Wrede wrote:
Am 17.02.2019 um 20:44 schrieb Andy Townsend:
I don't think that a "global" encouragement to add foot=no makes
sent from a phone
On 17. Feb 2019, at 23:49, Tobias Wrede wrote:
>> this is oversimplified, you are indeed legally required to walk on the road
>> even in the presence of sidewalks: if carrying big loads.
>
> Sure there are exceptions to every rule. We usually don't map that.
I did not mea
sent from a phone
> On 17. Feb 2019, at 23:49, Tobias Wrede wrote:
>
> Exactly, but how should the router know that?
highway=*
tunnel=yes
sidewalk=no
and a significant length
Cheers, Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Am 17.02.2019 um 17:45 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
this is oversimplified, you are indeed legally required to walk on the
road even in the presence of sidewalks: if carrying big loads.
Sure there are exceptions to every rule. We usually don't map that.
When there is no signage, foot=no is inc
sent from a phone
> On 17. Feb 2019, at 23:35, Tobias Wrede wrote:
>
> We also need to apply common sense when mapping.
yes. Although common sense is not a criterion for legal access. This is either
allowed or forbidden, and unless it is forbidden, access is by default allowed
on roads.
Am 15.02.2019 um 17:09 schrieb Hubert87:
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.
Well, not all foot=no roads do have a sidepath. And anyway this
discussion is on whether the
Am 17.02.2019 um 20:44 schrieb Andy Townsend:
I don't think that a "global" encouragement to add foot=no makes sense;
there'll be lots of countries where it'd be silly.
I don't think the app "encourages" anything. In this quest the app
merely speculates that the sidewalk=none could maybe warra
sent from a phone
> On 17. Feb 2019, at 22:39, Tobias Zwick wrote:
>
> No, that tag is correct. It is not allowed to walk in the tunnel,
> because the tunnel is still part of the street Tunisstraße, which has a
> sidewalk. See StVO §25 (1)
> https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvo_2013/__25.ht
Am 17.02.2019 um 21:57 schrieb Dave F via Tagging:
I should have been clearer. I was indicating a case where foot=no
would be appropriate, but I should have stated there are also cases
where 'yes' or 'designated' are required. I'm still unsure why Tobias
W. thinks tracks shouldn't be queried at
>> 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/@50.978,6.9530483,3a,60y,190.35h,87.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1
I should have been clearer. I was indicating a case where foot=no would
be appropriate, but I should have stated there are also cases where
'yes' or 'designated' are required. I'm still unsure why Tobias W.
thinks tracks shouldn't be queried at all yet residential roads should.
Don't misunders
On 15/02/2019 12:20, Tobias Wrede wrote:
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.
You're undoubtedly correct. However, foot=yes/no has always represented,
as stated
Places where you are "not allowed to walk*" vary hugely from one country to
another - in some places the presumption is yes unless denied, in others no
unless allowed, in still others still not really defined.
I don't think that a "global" encouragement to add foot=no makes sense;
there'll be l
Tracks are often "access=private" for everyone, so there's no reason to
call out foot access in particular.
--
Mark
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 19:27:44 +
Dave F via Tagging wrote:
> Why do you exclude tracks?
> Legal access to them are often denied as they're on private land
> (example: farms)
Why do you exclude tracks?
Legal access to them are often denied as they're on private land
(example: farms)
Why ford?
Why oneway?
Cheers
DaveF
On 15/02/2019 11:50, Tobias Wrede wrote:
As far as I am concerned roads that are most likely to merit a foot=no
are
- all highway road types excep
sent from a phone
> On 15. Feb 2019, at 13:20, Tobias Wrede wrote:
>
> 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.
this is oversimplified, you are indeed
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, 13:22 Tobias Wrede 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 roa
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 horse
Tobias Wrede writes:
> Think of all the residential roads in cities that get a higher class
> tagging because of their function in the road network. They are mostly
> not different from hw=residential in regards to foot=y/n. And also the
> many roads outside built-up areas have mostly no restrict
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 a
Le 15.02.19 à 12:35, Tobias Zwick a écrit :
> - perhaps also only ask for a sidewalk in the first place if the road is
> tagged as lit=yes? Asking for input.
that look like a good idea.
if a road have a sidewalk, no need to ask the legal access tag.
maybe also focus on "brige/tunnel/special stuf
Am 15.02.2019 um 12:35 schrieb Tobias Zwick:
So, while a tag to denote that a road is rural does not exist (yet), I could
filter out uninteresting roads using tell-tale tags.
So, I could further filter out roads with..
- lit != yes (so, also if lit is not set) to exclude most of the
rural/und
Am 14.02.2019 um 23:32 schrieb Tobias Zwick:
Agreed. I don't see much of a difference between residential and higher
class roads. I would even argue that around here a sidewalk=no + foot=no
is even less likely on higher class roads than on residentials.
How so?
Think of all the residential roa
Okay, right, this is a good point. I am not a native speaker and translated the
German word "zugänglich" (literally: enterable) to English and wasn't aware of
the ambiguous/broad meaning in the context of accessibility.
So I'll negate the wording to specifically ask for it being forbidden.
Furt
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
Joseph Eisenberg writes:
>> The question asked is "Is this street accessible for pedestrians here?".
>> It doesn't ask for the user's opinion on how safe it is.
>>
>
> I believe this is the wrong question. It should be “Are pedestrians legally
> prohibited from walking along this road?”
Agreed.
sent from a phone
> On 15. Feb 2019, at 01:24, Tobias Zwick wrote:
>
> Is this now about the word "legal" or about the negation of the question?
> What difference does the latter make?
it is making things much clearer because it follows common legal settings
(access is allowed unless it is
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:26 PM Tobias Zwick wrote:
>
> Is this now about the word "legal" or about the negation of the question?
> What difference does the latter make? Also, doesn't "probited" imply
> "legally" in common understanding?
>
> And of course, foot=no is tagged if a road is not acce
Is this now about the word "legal" or about the negation of the question? What
difference does the latter make? Also, doesn't "probited" imply "legally" in
common understanding?
And of course, foot=no is tagged if a road is not accessible by foot.
On February 15, 2019 12:52:16 AM GMT+01:00, Jos
+1!
On 2019-02-15 00:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> I believe this is the wrong question. It should be “Are pedestrians legally
> prohibited from walking along this road?”
>
> If so, use foot=no
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
__
> The question asked is "Is this street accessible for pedestrians here?".
> It doesn't ask for the user's opinion on how safe it is.
>
I believe this is the wrong question. It should be “Are pedestrians legally
prohibited from walking along this road?”
If so, use foot=no
Foot=yes should only be
sent from a phone
> On 14. Feb 2019, at 19:51, Tobias Zwick wrote:
>
> The reason for it being (not) accessible is secondary,
if the reason is not of legal nature, it is subjective and may be felt
differently by different people, that’s why we don’t do it.
The Hamburg example of the connec
sent from a phone
> On 14. Feb 2019, at 19:51, Tobias Zwick wrote:
>
> I am sure the police would find something
> else to charge you with when you take a walk on for example this busy
> intersection https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188015324 , like,
> hindrance of traffic. Note that the road
sent from a phone
> On 14. Feb 2019, at 19:51, Tobias Zwick wrote:
>
> I doubt access restrictions are used that way in reality.
you can do this, but in general they are used like this, and in the cases where
they aren’t, we should strive to improve the tagging, rather than redefine the
me
> Agreed. I don't see much of a difference between residential and higher
> class roads. I would even argue that around here a sidewalk=no + foot=no
> is even less likely on higher class roads than on residentials.
How so? I have the impression, we (all) have different kinds of road in
mind, when
The question asked is "Is this street accessible for pedestrians here?".
It doesn't ask for the user's opinion on how safe it is.
Also:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-February/042874.html
On 14/02/2019 22:10, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I am sorry, this is not the correct appr
Am 14.02.2019 um 22:10 schrieb Volker Schmidt:
I am sorry, this is not the correct approach. We have here plenty of
streets in other categories (unclassified|teritery|secondary|primary)
without sidewalk where it is perfectly legal for pedestrians to use
the road. This does not say whether it's
Legally and practically, all roads are open to pedestrians unless there is
a specific prohibition. Walking is considered a basic right, and
practically it is difficult to stop people from walking anywhere.
Motorways are the only exception in most countries.
In rural parts of the USA even motorway
I am sorry, this is not the correct approach. We have here plenty of
streets in other categories (unclassified|teritery|secondary|primary)
without sidewalk where it is perfectly legal for pedestrians to use the
road. This does not say whether it's safe to walk on them. If people now
start putting
No, I didn't. I explained the quest here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-February/042860.html
In a nutshell: foot=yes/no is only asked if sidewalk=no is tagged.
As per request on this mailing list, I now changed it so that regardless
of whether sidewalk=no is tagged, it is
Am 14.02.2019 um 21:28 schrieb Kevin Kenny:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:13 PM Tobias Wrede wrote:
Still, they are the very minority of situations where a residential (or
any other road) has no sidewalk.
Local cultural assumptions are in play here!
In my (suburban) township, few residential road
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:13 PM Tobias Wrede wrote:
> Still, they are the very minority of situations where a residential (or
> any other road) has no sidewalk.
Local cultural assumptions are in play here!
In my (suburban) township, few residential roads have sidewalks, so
the ones without sidew
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019, 11:17 JS The legal situation is already represented by the default OSM setting,
> considering all highways as "foot=yes" except some like motorways or those
> explicitly marked as "foot=no".
>
This seems like a good time to remind folks that in North America, there is
no san
Am 14.02.2019 um 20:50 schrieb Tobias Zwick:
Alright, I will change it so that the question whether a road is
accessible for pedestrians is never asked for residential roads (and
living streets, service roads, pedestrians roads) for v10.1
I think you lost me. Didn't you explain in the beginning
Am 14.02.2019 um 19:51 schrieb Tobias Zwick:
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. Anyway:
I doubt access restrictions are used that way in
Alright, I will change it so that the question whether a road is
accessible for pedestrians is never asked for residential roads (and
living streets, service roads, pedestrians roads) for v10.1
Tobias
On 14/02/2019 10:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>
> Hi,
> i am seeing a growing number of changesets
In the United States, the rules aren't quite as permissive (for
example, authorities are allowed to forbid foot traffic), but in
practice, I'm not aware of a single case where a residential street
actually prohibits foot traffic. (I'm aware of one near me that's
*tagged* as such, but I think it's
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 13:51, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> I doubt access restrictions are used that way in reality.
> The absence of keys like the mentioned key walkable(, cycleable,
> motorcarable, hgvable etc.) is a clear sign for that, because there are
> enough situations where the situation on the
I agree that it would make sense to not ask whether a road has a
sidewalk outside of built-up areas because in most cases, it will have
no sidewalks.
Regrettably, whether a road is in a built-up area or outside is not an
information that is recorded in OSM.
Tobias
On 14/02/2019 18:23, Martin Kop
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. Anyway:
I doubt access restrictions are used that way in reality.
The absence of keys like the mentione
sent from a phone
> On 14. Feb 2019, at 16:05, Rory McCann wrote:
>
> But in Ireland (& I think UK), all public roads except motorways, are
> foot=yes. Legally you can walk on the road, even if there is not footpath
> ("sidewalk"). I think this adds bloat and quests which will annoy mappers.
>The rationale behind collecting this information is, that if a street
>is
>explicitly surveyed as having no sidewalk, it is no longer implicated
>that naturally the street is accessible on foot (foot=yes). Roads
>explicitly signed as motorroads are not the only roads that are not
>accessible on
apart from underpasses, bridges also intersections and similar
constructs. They need not be trunk/motorroad.
For example many road segments at Deichtorplatz and inner lanes of
Willi-Brandt-Straße in Hamburg:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/53.54762/10.00345
On 14/02/2019 17:03, Philip Barne
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 04:00:24PM +0100, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> Wrong thread?
>
> Anyway, the quest in StreetComplete only asks for foot=yes/no if the
> road is tagged with sidewalk=no.
Sidewalk is a physical issue - foot=* is a legal issue.
It is perfectly normal for streets in Germany to have
On 14 February 2019 15:05:56 GMT, Rory McCann wrote:
>I can't find any issue on Github for this feature.
>
>But in Ireland (& I think UK), all public roads except motorways, are
>foot=yes. Legally you can walk on the road, even if there is not
>footpath ("sidewalk"). I think this adds bloat an
I can't find any issue on Github for this feature.
But in Ireland (& I think UK), all public roads except motorways, are
foot=yes. Legally you can walk on the road, even if there is not
footpath ("sidewalk"). I think this adds bloat and quests which will
annoy mappers.
On 14/02/2019 10:26, F
lto:dieterdre...@gmail.com
> <mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>]
> > Sent: torsdag 14. februar 2019 10.36
> > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on r
torsdag 14. februar 2019 10.36
> > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential
> >
> >
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >
> >> On 14. Feb 2019, at 10
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 08:42, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> What do you think?
Hello,
In my experience in Canada I would indeed expect all (or basically
all) highway=residential to be (legally) accessible to pedestrians,
the question would be more about comfort or safety. I don't know if
tagging foot=ye
f
> roads). StreetBloat instead of StreetComplete :)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com]
> Sent: torsdag 14. februar 2019 10.36
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / f
With this information given, the question is, whether
highway=residential + sidewalk=no
implies a
foot=yes
. And with implies, I mean, that it is considered *duplicate
information* if this is tagged. Note that This is different to an
unspecified information which can with relative certainty
Yes, there is a new quest in v10, which tags foot=yes/no. It is no
problem to make changes on it, but let me first provide some information
on it first, so we have a common basis to discuss:
For any street that has been tagged as having no sidewalk, the
StreetComplete asks the surveyor:
"Is this
al Message-
From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com]
Sent: torsdag 14. februar 2019 10.36
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential
sent from a phone
> On 14. Feb 2019, at 10:26, Florian Lohoff wr
sent from a phone
> On 14. Feb 2019, at 10:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>
> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
> what this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to
> all roads.
I agree the default is accessibility for everyone on non-motorroad roads.
Hi,
i am seeing a growing number of changesets setting foot=yes
on all kinds of roads e.g. residential
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403719315
Commit message is:
"Add whether roads are accessible for pedestrians"
All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
what this c
75 matches
Mail list logo
