On 5 Jul 2010, at 09:03, Ed Loach wrote: > Reading further down the wiki page, access= is a general term which > includes foot as a sub-level of the hierarchy. The road should > probably be tagged access=no, foot=yes (assuming that is the case). > In this case I'd say Cloudmade's route planner is correct.
That is in fact already the case. Here's the full set of tags for the relevant bit of Sidney Street:
<<inline: Screen shot 2010-07-05 at 09.11.58.png>>
It has access=no, but also bicycle=yes, foot=yes, and designation=pedestrian_zone. The intended meaning of "foot=yes" and "bicycle=yes" are pretty clear, but CloudMade's route finder still ignores them, and (I'm still only guessing that) this is because of "access=no", the intended meaning of which is somewhat less clear. So even if "access=no" does actually mean "no access to anybody, on foot or by transport", is it still generally acceptable to use a general tag like that and to list exceptions like "foot=yes"? Or is it just contradictory to have "access=no" and "foot=yes" on the same way? Tim
_______________________________________________ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
