On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 5:36 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > ...routers would lead pedestrians in areas where they are not allowed to > walk (cycleways).
Nonsense. There'll be a footway alongside that they can use (99.999% of the time). If you want to micro-map a footway as well, and put foot=no on the cycleway, feel free. But unless you've micro-mapped the footway, you should *not* be adding foot=no explicitly or implicitly, unless there really is no route. And the simplest way to show that it has been micromapped is to put an explicit foot=no on the cycleway when you've done it. I can see why this sort of nonsense would put a commercial router off - it may not affect their current service, but it doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it? Richard _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
