Foot=no - prohibited / impossible

[Map_HeRo (Mikke)]

@Matija_Nalis

Note that it is not about adding additional definition: that particular cat has been out of the bag for more than a year and a half now even if we look just at latest wiki change

I have seen the wiki page and I did not mean “adding additional definition now” but in general. The additional definition “impossible” has been added to an existing tag some time ago which I believe was not a good idea due to the given reasons.

@Matija_Nalis

IMHO such behaviour should be documented (and perhaps discouraged, if that is the consensus), but not swiped under the rug - so data consumers can take that peculiarity into the account.

Agreed.

[Hungerburg (Asa Hundert)]

I looked around the vicinity of mine and found lots of foot=no that are not signposted or backed by some law. Of interest for this topic those, where the mapper thought, that walking there is a bad idea. E.g. along busy highways without shoulders nor verges. If it wont kill you, you will certainly raise bad temper with the motorists.

There seems no other way to map such and I am fine with the mapping as is. For the wiki article, it might get difficult to find a good wording though.

[SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend)]

@Hungerburg

There seems no other way to map such

Separately from the use of “foot=no” in such cases, you absolutely can map some of the things that make walking there dangerous

• The maxspeed on the road
• sidewalk=no to indicate no sidewalk
• verge=no to indicate no verge
• Something to indicate no shoulder (if shoulders on normal roads are a thing in your country)
• The width of the road
• Whether there are hedges or walls and how close they are to the road.

[SK53]

Additionally there is the possibility to use the hazard key for some indication of these dangers, but that itself is a whole different topic.

[Hungerburg (Asa Hundert)]

You (both @SomeoneElse @SK53) are right; I personally am only fine with this tagging “foot=no” where the mapper thinks, it should be forbidden to walk, while this is not the case, as long as this does not spread beyond the reasonable. Perhaps “foot=discouraged” suits better there?

This topic saw another case for “foot=no” under the “impossible” clause: @Matija_Nalis mentioned seasonal paths: In my mind, there the conditional actually applies to the path, not the access thereof?