Are you saying that in Texas you can't walk on a street that doesn't have a sidewalk? Only in a city environment or also in a non-city environment? Or in Texas if you're on foot you're going nowhere? Definitely not human!
Il giorno dom 18 dic 2022 alle ore 22:31 Brian M. Sperlongano < zelonew...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > Hi, > > The tagging that I cited was from Texas in the USA. In that location, it > is illegal to walk in the roadway (where the cars go), but there was a > separate sidewalk where pedestrians are supposed to walk. However, my > software works globally so I'm trying to understand how that > `sidewalk=separate` + `foot=no` combination should be interpreted on a > global basis, or if I should just ignore those combinations as a tagging > error. > > So the situation is: > 1. There is a sidewalk, and it's mapped separately > 2. The road is tagged sidewalk=separate + foot=no > 3. It's illegal to walk in the road itself because there is a sidewalk > (state law in that area) > > On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 4:22 PM Ivo Reano <reano...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I don't know in your area if all pedestrians who use the streets just >> because they don't have a car are punished. >> In Italy, only motorways and some major traffic routes are formally >> "forbidden" to pedestrian transit. >> If I found a foot=yes on a street, simply to indicate that one should not >> walk in the middle of the street, I would delete that tag (and send a >> message to the user asking what he meant). >> It seems obvious to me that if I walk on a road I keep to the left >> (excuse non-Anglo-Saxons, but this is the preferred direction for >> pedestrians on driveways in the rest of the world). >> While if I'm on a road with no traffic (not flat) I mostly walk on the >> downhill side. >> In short: if there isn't a sidewalk, and the street isn't reserved for >> vehicles (but where do you live?) foot=no it seems absurd to me, or rather >> wrong. >> >> Ivo, Jrachi >> >> Il giorno dom 18 dic 2022 alle ore 22:05 <cyton_...@web.de> ha scritto: >> >>> Yes, only if the local legislation infers that pedestrians have to use a >>> (usually car) road-accompanying sidewalk. >>> >>> Also, your project reminds me of wandrer.earth, where craig also >>> introduced a way for running to track ran ways, not only for cyclists. >>> Though i only use it for cycling. >>> >>> -- >>> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android Mobiltelefon mit WEB.DE Mail >>> gesendet. >>> Am 18.12.22, 21:47 schrieb "Brian M. Sperlongano" <zelonew...@gmail.com >>> >: >>> >>>> Thanks Cyton. >>>> >>>> Just to be clear, I'm only talking about automobile roads - >>>> highway=trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified/residential. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 3:41 PM <cyton_...@web.de> wrote: >>>> >>>>> If and only if there is a separately mapped sidewalk. >>>>> Sidewalk=separate means there needs to be such a way. >>>>> However i would tag foot=use_sidepath, which means the same as foot=no >>>>> but also indicates the existence of a separate way usable for routing. >>>>> And only if the highway is a streets centerline, not a cycleway or >>>>> other. >>>>> >>>>> Cyton >>>>> Am 18.12.22, 21:32 schrieb "Brian M. Sperlongano" < >>>>> zelonew...@gmail.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am the author of a data consumer which generates a list of streets >>>>>> that are accessible to walkers and joggers. The idea is that a user would >>>>>> have a map of the streets in their town and can challenge themselves to >>>>>> walk/jog down every street, and they can look at statistics on which >>>>>> streets they've completed. I use a 25-meter rule, so if a user can walk >>>>>> along the shoulder, or on a sidewalk/pavement, or in the verge, that's >>>>>> acceptable. >>>>>> >>>>>> I recently came across an unexpected tagging combination and I would >>>>>> like to understand how folks in various places would interpret this: >>>>>> >>>>>> highway=<whatever> >>>>>> foot=no >>>>>> sidewalk=separate >>>>>> >>>>>> In my software's logic, I've made the assumption that foot=* applies >>>>>> to "the whole of the road" including the roadway, shoulders, verge, >>>>>> sidewalks, and so forth and thus excluded any roads that include that >>>>>> tag, >>>>>> regardless of other tagging. I came to understand that this tagging was >>>>>> used by a mapper to indicate that "pedestrians are not allowed on the >>>>>> roadway, however, they are allowed on the sidewalk" >>>>>> >>>>>> Would folks regard that as accurate data modeling? I.e. should I >>>>>> change my software to treat streets tagged in this way as >>>>>> pedestrian-accessible, or would folks regard this combination as a >>>>>> tagging >>>>>> error? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list >>>>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Tagging mailing list >>>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list >>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
