foot
yes
is applied for roads and paths where the public has a legally-enshrined right for access on foot (a right of way), as opposed to
foot
permissive
where the owner can revoke the permission at will.
For a
barrier
crossing
entrance
and
ford
, it indicates there is physical access. However, if there is a sign that specifies permission, that should be used instead.
Examples of usage
foot
yes
is used, for instance, to indicate:
that access for pedestrians on that way is legally enshrined (if applicable in national/regional law):
foot
yes
instead of
foot
permissive
to indicate that walking on the carriageway of a residential road is allowed, since in that case there is no parallel path or sidewalk (mapped as a separate way in OSM) that is mandatory for pedestrians
highway
residential
foot
yes
(instead of
foot
use_sidepath
to indicate that walking on a certain cycleway is legal:
highway
cycleway
foot
yes
to differentiate access for pedestrians and vehicles, such as on a service road with
foot
yes
vehicle
private
to indicate a pedestrian can pass a
barrier
=*
although for most barriers it is implied that pedestrians can pass, so it does not need an explicit tag.
Conflicting tags
In some cases mapper may wish to use
foot
designated
to indicate that usage by foot is explicitly mentioned on signs in the field (such as on a segregated footway and cycleway mapped as one way). A mapper that does not wish to use
multiple values
(which are not as well supported as single values) must in this case choose between indicating the legal basis of foot-access (
foot
yes
or
foot
permissive
) or the explicit signage
foot
designated
. This is the consequence of many values in
access
=*
answering different questions.
Do not use
foot
yes
in combination with a
guidepost
or
map
, use
hiking
=*
instead.
Controversy
Some mappers argue that
foot
yes
is obvious in many cases and allowed as part of the
default access restrictions
for almost all roads, that it is unnecessary to be added or should even be removed. In the past this has lead to mass deletions in (undiscussed) mechanical edits and in many smaller batches because of
now repaired validator rules
The value that mappers give to tags such as
foot
yes
depend on one's interests in detailed access-mapping and the legal situation in a country; in a country with a strong version of
freedom to roam
or without mandatory sidepaths for pedestrians there might be less need for or interest in tags such as
foot
yes
. However, in countries where many ways only have permissive access, the distinction between
foot
yes
and
foot
permissive
is relevant even on a
highway
footway
, however counter-intuitive that might seem to some.
In any case, be considerate and
do not remove tags that you don't understand
See also
Possible tagging mistakes