I would only use highway=pedestrian on areas (and potentially connections to that) that have purposely been built or rebuilt for pedestrian access to shops / amenities and similar, and comes with corresponding access restrictions for vehicles (only shop access at certain times). I would definitely not use it on normal road infrastructure.
1 Like
carto also has issues with these
I guess this includes all the pedestrianized historic city centers, for example in Germany? What is the minimum of ârebuiltâ that qualifies?
I would tag it as highway=service,access=private,surface=asphalt
For me the difference is mostly that from the perspective of a pedestrian, you can be more relaxed on a pedestrians street, knowing that cars will go very slow and stop if pedestrians are blocking the way. In Denmark signed pedestrian streets imply maxspeed:advisory=15
On a road like on the picture an employee in a motor vehicle could go quite fast, and if I was walking there hearing or seeing a car, I would definitely get off the asphalt immediately.
it is at least missing marking of âopen to pedestrians and cyclistsâ, your proposed tagging would miss it
1 Like
Yes, I meant motor_vehicle=private
2 Likes
note that status of horses may need to be clarified, with extra horse=no / horse=private being needed
That sounds very much like highway=living_street not a pedestrian area. In general highway=pedestrian will not allow vehicle access except for delivery and similar to amenities/shops (typically with some kind of time of day restriction), in Germany to give an example, you are not even allowed to cycle on a highway=pedestrian.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dliving_street and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian
Yes.
I do not tag streets as living_streets or pedestrian if it is not signed. And in Denmark they are very thorough signing things like that.
One reason is that these default access rules and maxspeeds defined by law.
For example on living streets here maxspeed is 15. But if there is no sign on the street the maxspeed is likely not 15, and tagging it with maxspeed=unknown seems like a bad idea.
Also danish law says that you must âgive_wayâ when you exit a pedestrian road.
That mean for example that if there is tree way intersection with two unclassified roads, but the side road is then tagged as a pedestrian road, then cars on the other road will assume that cars on the side road will yield, which might not be the case.
E.g. I would not tag a path on a cemetery as a pedestrian road. But it is certainly is not a âliving streetâ.
The same is default in Denmark. But many pedestrian streets are signed as motor_vehicle=yes or motor_vehicle=destination. Or cars are allowed outside store opening hours. Postal services, craftsmen servicing roads, sewage, cables, etc, trucks delivering stages for events, etc. are usually also allowed.
All in all it is very common to encounter a motor_vehicle on a pedestrian road. But the law explicitly states that on pedestrian roads motor_vehicles must take special consideration to pedestrians.
Outside of town I think it should be tagged:
highway=track, tracktype=grade1, motor_vehicle=no
A barrier should be tagged at the entrance.
I would prefer Minhâs suggestion of highway=cycleway.
highway=track, tracktype=grade1, motor_vehicle=no
Please only do that if youâre adding a surface=asphalt tag too. tracktype=grade1 is ambiguous as to whether itâs paved or not (the wiki says âUsually a paved or sealed surfaceâ, but even that âUsuallyâ isnât born out by mappers in many countries).
Personally Iâd tag it with highway=unclassified, motor_vehicle=no (being aware that I might incur Mateuszâs wrath 
).
It has the construction standards and characteristics of an unclassified road, but motor vehicles arenât allowed on it. So that gives you everything you need to know in just two tags.
1 Like
No, mine :-). It was established further up that there is no relevant sign posting and that the ârestrictionâ manifests itself as a pad locked gate that stops unauthorized motor vehicle access, so simply adding the gate (with corresponding access tags) as a node on the way is IMHO sufficient.
2 Likes
highway=unclassified is about role/importance of the way, not its construction standards
highway=unclassified can be for example unpaved (even highway=tertiary and higher can be unpaved)
I think I would consider highway=unclassified motor_vehicle=no as Trolltag - OpenStreetMap Wiki similar to tagging prison as tourism=hotel involuntary=yes
1 Like
Surprise - surprise ⌠surprise ⌠after more than a decade of mapping the world a simple track in a state park still refuses to fit into the tagging scheme ⌠34 comments already - the agglomerated expertise of hundreds of years of mapping expertise - and still no consensus if it is unclassified, cycledway, pedestrian, service or the like whereas everyone can see that it is a simple track, grade1, asphalt, obviously blocked by a gate to individual motor vehicles (but open for those who have the key at hand) and also open to pedestrians, bicycles and probably horses (? no pic of the barrier to be sure) ⌠so what shall I say ⌠
1 Like
You might consider that but youâd be wrong. motor_vehicle=no is a standard tag which every router and renderer should understand. There is no danger of any router/renderer misunderstanding the tag combination, unless theyâre seriously broken.
what about highway=tertiary motor_vehicle=no, can you imagine situations where this would be âbestâ?
1 Like
Itâs unlikely but not entirely impossible.
Renders and routers and under no obligation to support broken tagging.
It is easier to handle in routers where adding bunch of rules is easier, but I would not expect any renderers to support it. And in fact, almost none of them do this. And I think that none of widely used ones would show it specially.
motor_vehicle=nois a standard tag
Yes, but in some combinations it makes no sense. Valid tag can become used in invalid way.
For example highway=motorway and leisure=playground are standard tag but area/line tagged as highway=motorway leisure=playground makes no sense and expecting any reasonable rendering here is mistaken.
In one of reasons for such tagging amenity=traffic_park could be an actually correct tagging.
in historic town centres with narrow alleys I usually make the distinction of legal motorcar access by deciding between highway=service service=alley width=* or highway=footway
Theoretically highway=primary motorcar=no could âworkâ but if no motor vehicles are allowed the question is why it should be considered a road (one reason could be that it was a road in the past and is still considered a âroadâ, maybe? Currently these are mostly mapped as tracks where I am aware, but it could be discussed if unclassified could be an alternative when they constitute a connection)