Sota"
Cc: "OSM Australian Talk List"
Sent: 21/11/2021 6:40:19 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Use of pedestrian streets to imply route
hierarchy
Based on the wiki I understand highway=pedestrian to be for roads that
pedestrians freely walk on and some vehicles can drive on, but mostly
On 21/11/21 2:41 pm, stevea wrote:
I repeat something I have said a number of times, say for example, about bicycle
infrastructure / routes. Although it can be said about "pedestrian infrastructure /
routes" pretty much one-for-one (as bicycle infrastructure / routes). It is this:
There
Based on the wiki I understand highway=pedestrian to be for roads that
pedestrians freely walk on and some vehicles can drive on, but mostly
vehicles don't drive on them because there are too many pedestrians or
restrictions limit vehicle access.
It's a common misstagging to use it as a more
I repeat something I have said a number of times, say for example, about
bicycle infrastructure / routes. Although it can be said about "pedestrian
infrastructure / routes" pretty much one-for-one (as bicycle infrastructure /
routes). It is this:
There is "infrastructure" tagging, like
Hello all,
I'm a relatively new mapper (1.5 years) using iD, and am hoping to get
some clarification on the use of pedestrian streets after some changes
were made to my edits. In these changes, pedestrian streets have been
used to imply a hierarchy in the footway network, in spite of their
5 matches
Mail list logo