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 all yet residential roads
should.
Don't misunderstand - I'm not advocating the use of the app. I'm
dubious about it's quality if Tobias Z. can spend "3+ years"
developing it, yet not read the wiki. This query should be retitled to
something like 'do pedestrians have legal access to this street?'
Hopefully that would deter users from adding either yes or no when
they're unsure which it is or even if it required at all.
Cheers
DaveF
On 17/02/2019 19:44, Mark Wagner wrote:
Tracks are often "access=private" for everyone, so there's no reason to
call out foot access in particular.
We are discussing a quest whose basis is the speculation that a
sidewalk=none could also warrant a foot=no. I was thinking about how
likely that is in different situations. And I think it is very unlikely
for tracks. I don't think I have ever seen a track with a sidewalk so
not having a sidewalk is pretty meaningless in regards to being a
candidate for this quest.
Tobias W-
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
