Path with same tags as implied by special path should be rendered the same

[Newbie07]

Please render "highway=path" with "access=no" and "foot=designated" the same as "highway=footway".

Same issue with mixed ways for bicycle and foot, cycleway and bridleway.

Major problem is the way to prominent rendering of "access=no" but this is an issue of its own.

[matthijsmelissen]

So you are basically asking not to render access=no on footway's, right?

To illustrate your point, do you perhaps have a link to a place on the map where this is a problem?

[Newbie07]

So you are basically asking not to render access=no on footway's, right?

No, we have several problems:

1. My initial one is that e.g. footway implies access=no and foot=designated and should be rendered the same as path with these two tags. (same for cycleway <-> path, and bridleway <-> path).
2. Access=no can be overwritten by a lot of special access tags and than it is often too prominent or misleading.
3. access=no on paths needs different handling than other highways. Need to take foot/bicycle/hiking/horse into account (similar to 1.)

To illustrate your point, do you perhaps have a link to a place on the map where this is a problem?

Have a look at [1].

The bridge and all the paths to the south are all paths with foot=designated and access=no or footways which implies the two tags. Some have an additional bicycle=yes.

All should be rendered the same

[1] http://osm.org/go/0DKHVFNxX

[dieterdreist]

Il giorno 24/ago/2013, alle ore 22:23, Newbie07
notifications@github.com ha scritto:

1. My initial one is that e.g. footway implies access=no and foot=designated and should be rendered the same as path with these two tags. (same for cycleway <-> path, and bridleway <-> path).
2. Access=no can be overwritten by a lot of special access tags and than it is often too prominent or misleading.
3. access=no on paths needs different handling than other highways. Need to take foot/bicycle/hiking/horse into account (similar to 1.)

when tagging access restrictions explicitly on ways that are used (as
opposed to ways closed for security reasons like after catastrophes
and/or for other dangers like landslides or quicksand or military
training) it is preferable not to use access=no but to be more limited
(vehicle=no or motorvehicle=no etc.) as a general access restriction
is often too restrictive (think about emergency vehicles, horses, snow
mobiles, etc.) and will probably also include future access-classes...

cheers,
Martin

[matthijsmelissen]

The road in the example is tagged with access=no, foot=designated. German law probably implies that emergency vehicles, horses and snow mobiles also don't have access. I don't think there is a rule that access=no cannot be overwritten by more specific tags, so I don't see anything wrong with the current tagging.

Perhaps the relevant question is whether the rendering of access restrictions is intended for drivers, pedestrians, or any traffic. Currently we only look at the access tag, independent from how more specific tags overwrite it. This implies that {access=no, bicycle=yes, foot=yes} and {motor_vehicle=no} are rendered differently, although they are equivalent for 99,9% of the traffic. In general, I would prefer if motor_vehicle=no was rendered like access=no on highway=unclassified and highway=residential.

I think for the general purpose map it would be most useful to 1) on residential ways and higher display the access restrictions for motorized traffic, and 2) on footways display the access restrictions for pedestrians. For example, if a residential road is closed for motorized vehicles but not for pedestrians, it would still be expected to display the access restriction on the map.

[dieterdreist]

Il giorno 25/ago/2013, alle ore 17:57, math1985 notifications@github.com ha scritto:

if a residential road is closed for motorized vehicles but not for pedestrians, it would still be expected to display the access restriction on the map.

normally this would be highway=pedestrian anyway, maybe for special situations (e.g. together with psv=yes) your suggested tagging would make sense, but keep in mind that sidewalks usually are also represented by the main highway-way.

cheers,
Martin

[matthijsmelissen]

Yes, or a more common situation is access=destination. The destination tag normally only holds for motorized traffic, so it should be tagged as either access=destination,foot=yes or as motor_vehicle=destination. In either case, I would expect the access restriction to be rendered (currently, only the former is).

[matthijsmelissen]

Please render "highway=path" with "access=no" and "foot=designated" the same as "highway=footway".

I have thought about it, and I think we should indeed stimulate a tagging scheme like motor_vehicle=no. We can only do that after #214 has been implemented, though.

I will close this as tagging error.