Coming from the west, the primary road leads into the tunnel completely without a sidewalk. A very narrow (40-50cm?), raised concrete base begins directly at the tunnel entrance. At the other end of the tunnel, a sidewalk (north) continues through the village, the other side ends at a stone wall.
I would not have interpreted this installation as a normal sidewalk, but as a raised emergency walkway for the escape routes to the emergency exits. (See 2.3.1. STSG)
In neuen Tunneln, die über keinen Seitenstreifen verfügen, sind erhöhte oder nicht erhöhte Notgehwege vorzusehen, die von den Tunnelnutzern bei Pannen oder Unfällen benutzt werden können.
Translation:
In new tunnels that do not have a hard shoulder, raised or non-raised emergency footpaths shall be provided for use by tunnel users in the event of breakdowns or accidents.
Does this nevertheless qualify for sidewalk=both? Thanks!
The original German text sounds more like “only for use in an emergency”, so I would say that it’s not a regular sidewalk, but an emergency escape path that would be suicidal to use for anything else. Of course you could still use sidewalk=both + foot=no, but some routers will always route via sidewalks, no matter the foot-tag
As a minimum requirement, when an abled individual cannot safely use the path while cars drive by, it should not be tagged as sidewalk; these strips may be meant to create space between vehicles and buildings rather than for walking on (German: Schrammbord).
What I see in Mapillary, an abled person could walk there, so according tobthe wiki it is an OSM-Sidewalk. I agree it is no regular Austrian-Sidewalk.
I would tag sidewalk:both=yes and add sidewalk:both:with= to specify how narrow it is.
For what it’s worth, this can happen with bridges too. It’s easier to express this situation on a separate way than using sidewalk=*, which only communicates the presence of a sidewalk but not whether it can be used.
One wrinkle is that emergency=* normally refers to emergency vehicles and personnel, typically police, firefighters, and paramedics. But these sidewalks are for anyone to use in an emergency. It’s sort of like the opposite of foot=destination. Presumably the law doesn’t prevent pedestrians from seeking safety while ignoring normal access restrictions, so access=no probably achieves the desired effect.
Good input, but in this case walking through the tunnel is actually legal (if I am not mistaken). It is just an unusually narrow path, designed for emergencies, but not legally restricted to emergencies only.
Yeah, seems that way. Where legal right of way exists but is unsafe (e.g. walking on a random rural road in Canada) the usual advice is to tag physical properties to indicate the unsafeness. The same could probably be done here. sidewalk:left/right:width seems obvious. You could probably also do something like sidewalk:left/right:buffer=no by analogy with cycleway:buffer.
Thank you all very much for your feedback. To summarize, I would say it is legally possible to walk through the tunnel, but not really optimal, as it is narrow, close to traffic and you are standing in the meadow at the other end anyway.
