I keep coming across cases where marking the access to a way based on primary category will imply that the way is not suitable for use on foot. That becomes particularly interesting with barriers, as in those cases, the sidewalk may bypass the barrier.
For concrete examples, I'll use Northwick Park and Northwick Part Tube station, in North West London. At the North end, there is a stub road <http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/6134854>. This is gated off, almost permanently, where it joins the local public road, but has sidewalks and there are gaps in the barrier for each sidewalk. At the station end, it leads to a permanently open foot tunnel, which exits to Proyer's Path, which is signposted as mixed foot and cycle, and was recently re-laid explicitly to make it suitable for mixed use. There are also foot routes into Westminster University and Northwick Park Hospital, from the end of the tunnel. It seems to me that the stub road has private status for motor vehicles, and as it is in the form of a road for such vehicles, that is its primary status. Is must have destination status on foot and dismounted bicycles, for the tube station. The junction with Proyers Path suggests that it should have at least yes status for foot and cycle. At the moment, I've coded it as access=private; foot=yes, which should result in correct routing decisions, but will cause it not to show as passable to pedestrians on normal map renderings. The gate is more of a problem, as my reading of the access rules for gates is that they specify what can pass when the gate is open, so don't allow you to specify categories for which the gate effectively doesn't exist (pedestrians, in this case). Gates possibly need a way of indicating types of traffic for which they are really entrances. (Possibly foot=entrance, or, with more backward compatibility problems, motor_vehicle=gate.) At the other end of Proyers path, is a car park, and a roadway leads South from there, to another gate <http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/370154648>, which is open to authorised vehicles only (as signed on the driveway, beyond the gate, so really not an attribute of the gate). The gate is bypassed by people on the pavement on the public road, but is open from 8am to nominal dusk. To add complications, just inside the gate is a PROW public footpath sign, for a footpath to the park, so, although the scope of this is very unclear, the bypass probably has PROW status. Authorised vehicles are, I suspect, ones using the pavilion, by the car park, but the main reason is probably to stop its use as a station car park, by long distance commuters. The road has cycle markings, so there is some presumption that it is always open to cycles. If I mark the gate with opening hours and access, it implies these restrictions apply to pedestrians and cyclists, which they don't. If I mark the driveway as private or destination, it will be shown as that on the standard map, even if the restriction is removed by the use of foot and cycle keys. Whilst one could break out the sidewalk paths on each side of the gate, as explicit features, that will clutter the map (as a side note, I already see some areas of the map being cluttered by having every private path and car park). It doesn't help with the driveway through the park, as that has no sidewalks, once you get past the gate. What are peoples thoujghts on the best way of getting the data model correct, whilst also producing something useful to people using the standard map rendering, particularly for barriers. PS There are yellow padlocks on the second gate, so even the opening hours are not valid for emergency vehicles. _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
