Changeset: 47787368
allow pedestrians
Closed by Mike Baggaley
Tags
build | 2.5-7-gbd74430 |
---|---|
created_by | Potlatch 2 |
version | 2.5 |
Discussion
-
Comment from ACS1986
Hi Mike,
Adding foot=yes would allow pedestrians whilst maintaining the traffic restrictions.
Removing the access=no tag to allow pedestrians has the unintended effect of allowing some types of traffic which aren't permitted by the road signs egs. horses and non-motorised vehicles.
Regards,
Adam -
Comment from Mike Baggaley
Hi, Adam,
I must admit I haven't checked to see whether there is a no horses sign, but these are extremely rare in the UK, so I'd be very surprised if there is one there - they are normally only found at tunnels and other places that could be dangerous. Regarding vehicular traffic, I had thought that the only non-motorised vehicle supported by OSM was bicycle and the way already had bicycle=yes on it, hence my change of access=no to motor_vehicle=no. However, on checking I see horse and carriage is also supported (caravan and trailer don't apply as these will already be prohibited by the towing vehicle, unless someone is trying to push one along and I don't think anyone will seriously expect to accurately map where a caravan can legally be pushed). I have never see a carriage tag on any way and see that there are only a small number worldwide, suggesting that it is a facility that is not being used. I don't believe anyone will use the tags in OSM to determine where they can take a horse and carriage.Regards,
Mike -
Comment from ACS1986
Hi,
The signs are the blue circular signs meaning a road for buses, cycles and taxis only. Obviously pedestrians are also allowed unless explicitly prohibited.
access=no, foot=yes, bus=yes, taxi=yes bicycle=yes seems a more accurate representation of these restrictions than motor_vehicle=no, bus=yes, taxi=yes, bicycle=yes but as you say the practical difference to end users is minimal.
Kind regards,
Adam -
Comment from Mike Baggaley
Hi, there are several reasons I normally choose setting motor_vehicle=no over access=no and overriding specific types of access. One is that setting access=no generally sets an incorrect value for horses - neither the blue signs nor the no entry signs prohibit horses, but I don't want to explicitly set horse values. I am generally suspicious of ways tagged with access=no, as many mappers automatically put it where there is a no entry sign, without thinking of the non vehicular users. Also, using access=no gives the impression of a stronger prohibition and this seems to be echoed by the standard OSM renderer which appears to render differently if access=no is specified, regardless of the individual access settings.
Best wishes,
Mike
Ways (1)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |