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 mentioned key walkable(, cycleable, motorcarable, hgvable etc.) is a clear sign for that, because there are enough situations where the situation on the ground is clear for a surveyor but there is no official sign. Otherwise, the access restriction information would be hardly useful. There are many different road traffic legislations around the world and (as I read many of them) I can tell you that there is a lot of variance in how precisely and how close to reality they are written. And also, how much the road authority feels the need to sign more or less obvious road situations. In some legislations, there is no notion of motorways and motorroads, but roads like this may nevertheless exist. Does that mean that no roads may be tagged like this in OSM? No. Does it mean that foot=yes is implicitly assumed on them? Well, no, because even if that would be the official legal situation, that would be silly, and I am sure no policeman with common-sense would listen to this kind of bean counting. Same with Germany/UK. Some posters mentioned, that on any road without a sidewalk and without an explicit access restriction for pedestrians, pedestrians are allowed. Okay, that is new to me, but if this is true, then this is also a case where the law (massively) diverges from the actual reality on the ground. 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 authority also did not bother to put any signs there [*] (Google Streetview: https://www.google.de/maps/@53.5483485,10.0055799,3a,73y,176.82h,81.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBSZx5A6MNVRKd0qN6MIanQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 ) Incidentally, that section is also tagged with foot=no. I have no statistics up my sleeve, but I firmly believe that this is no exception, because, common sense. 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? - 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, because this information is mostly used for verifiability, but not for the routing itself. It is the source of the information, like maxspeed:source=sign. So, to come back to StreetComplete, the app could of course ask the user instead: "Is this street *legally* accessible for pedestrians here?". But, I hope I made clear that this is beside the point and asking more generally is both more concise and meaningful. A surveyor that is on-site is in the best position judge the situation according to common sense if no sign is present and if he cannot (i.e. the answer would be "prrooobably yes, it's not forbidden at least, but perhaps a bit dangerous"), then he can still leave a note in which he explains the situation and attaches some photos to it. Tobias [*] And exactly these situations were the ones I had in mind when designing the discussed quest for StreetComplete, by the way. On 14/02/2019 18:16, JS wrote: > > >> 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 foot. >> >> And this is an important information for pedestrian routers and maybe a >> useful information for car routers (because they might want to prefer >> routes without the sidewalk=no + foot=yes > > First, thanks for all the effort put into "StreetComplete". I really like the > app and frequently use it. > > Concerning the new task, I think the rationale to explicitly map highways > that are actually accessible to pedestrians is laudable. But the approach > chosen here may be inaccurate as it mixes the legal and the physical > realities. 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". > > Although walking on a street may be allowed, it may however be unpleasant or > even unsafe to really do so. But this physical reality should, IMHO, be > reflected in a separate (afaik still non-existant) tag, like "walkable=1-3" > or so. This could then be taken into account by routers when calculating > alternative routes between to points. But that certainly goes beyond this > thread. > > I would, in consequence, support the deactivation of the task in its current > form. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
