You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Show highway=pedestrian access=no with a pattern similar to the one used for other streets with access=no
Actual behavior
No rendering of access= on highway=pedestrian. I would be curious if this is a deliberate decision - as it it seems inconsistent with the rendering of access restrictions in other highway types.
I noticed this when looking at a pedestrian bridge that had been closed and marked with access=no (it has since reopened). I was surprised to see that it was tagged access=no but did not "look closed" on the map.
Searching Overpass for examples of access=no on highway=pedestrian (4,395 cases worldwide) finds more examples of this e.g. a pedestrian street being closed (to pedestrians) due to roadworks for a couple of months. It also shows examples of verbose access tagging, e.g. highway=pedestrian access=no foot=yes bicycle=yes motor_vehicle=no, so rendering access on pedestrian without taking into account foot (i.e. solving #214) would have the side effect of showing these on the map. Not sure if that would be considered a good or a bad thing, but I wanted to flag it.
Yes, this is one of the things we discussed as potential follow-up changes to #4952. With the current system of showing only access=* and not the transport mode specific access tags showing access=no without interpreting foot=* would often be confusing. But with #4952 this could definitely be of value.
Expected behavior
Show
highway=pedestrian access=no
with a pattern similar to the one used for other streets withaccess=no
Actual behavior
No rendering of
access=
onhighway=pedestrian
. I would be curious if this is a deliberate decision - as it it seems inconsistent with the rendering of access restrictions in other highway types.I noticed this when looking at a pedestrian bridge that had been closed and marked with
access=no
(it has since reopened). I was surprised to see that it was taggedaccess=no
but did not "look closed" on the map.Searching Overpass for examples of
access=no
onhighway=pedestrian
(4,395 cases worldwide) finds more examples of this e.g. a pedestrian street being closed (to pedestrians) due to roadworks for a couple of months. It also shows examples of verbose access tagging, e.g.highway=pedestrian access=no foot=yes bicycle=yes motor_vehicle=no
, so renderingaccess
onpedestrian
without taking into accountfoot
(i.e. solving #214) would have the side effect of showing these on the map. Not sure if that would be considered a good or a bad thing, but I wanted to flag it.Screenshots with links illustrating the problem
This is a screenshot of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5049168 before I removed
access=no
(because the bridge has now reopened).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: