I love the project idea, unfortunately I had bad experiences with the community. I had lots of fun walking my neighbourhood to perform quests in the app until like one or two other users started reverting my edits. I checked their comments and it was some weird pedantic arguments, like I shouldn't mark a street as not walkable because there is no official sign that prohibits walking; the fact that it's basically a highway with no sidewalk would not matter.
I ended up digging through the OSM wiki for definitions and rules to argue my case but in the end it felt very much like people on a power trip insistent on getting their way. It has ruined the fun in StreetComplete for me and I haven't participated since.
This has been the most controversial quest in StreetComplete for a while. Following several discussions about it, I have now removed it for the upcoming version (i.e. v64.0).
Can you steelman the case of the users who reverted the above commenters' edits?
In most countries, walking on a controlled-access highway[1] is specifically illegal. Why should it not be marked as non-walkable just because there's no signage?
> it's basically a highway with no sidewalk would not matter.
"Basically a highway" and "a highway" is different!
In my experience all highways have markings explicitly banning walking (among other things). So it sounds like OP was making a judgement call based on the fact that there's no sidewalk.
I have the unfortunate experience of walking alongside certain roads without sidewalks. It's not fun by any means but I wouldn't want OSM to outright say that it's not walkable.
Of course it maybe "actually" was a highway.
OSM originated in the UK so it uses UK norms for most things. You wouldn't need to tag a motorway as not allowing pedestrians because that's already implied by the fact that it's tagged as a motorway.
What OP was (probably) doing was tagging roads that aren't motorways and that have no sign banning pedestrians with `foot=no`, which is only supposed to be used in situations where walking is illegal or impossible. Eventually more experienced mappers noticed what OP was doing and reverted a bunch of his edits, which isn't a great feeling, particularly if you've been mapping that way for a while before anyone noticed
(If OP was using StreetComplete I'd blame StreetComplete for this more than the OP. They used to have a quest for pedestrian walkability that was poorly worded, which they've since removed because it was leading to exactly this kind of confusion.)
atollk · · focus · HN ↗
I ended up digging through the OSM wiki for definitions and rules to argue my case but in the end it felt very much like people on a power trip insistent on getting their way. It has ruined the fun in StreetComplete for me and I haven't participated since.
westnordost · · focus · HN ↗
pcthrowaway · · focus · HN ↗
In most countries, walking on a controlled-access highway[1] is specifically illegal. Why should it not be marked as non-walkable just because there's no signage?
[1]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled-access_highway" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled-access_highway
rtpg · · focus · HN ↗
> it's basically a highway with no sidewalk would not matter.
"Basically a highway" and "a highway" is different!
In my experience all highways have markings explicitly banning walking (among other things). So it sounds like OP was making a judgement call based on the fact that there's no sidewalk.
I have the unfortunate experience of walking alongside certain roads without sidewalks. It's not fun by any means but I wouldn't want OSM to outright say that it's not walkable.
Of course it maybe "actually" was a highway.
pasc1878 · · focus · HN ↗
In the UK you can walk on any road except a Motorway. Non of this is signed.
In the UK there are many places to get somewhere you have to walk on a road (even A roads) that does not have a pavement (US sidewalk)
Ajedi32 · · focus · HN ↗
What OP was (probably) doing was tagging roads that aren't motorways and that have no sign banning pedestrians with `foot=no`, which is only supposed to be used in situations where walking is illegal or impossible. Eventually more experienced mappers noticed what OP was doing and reverted a bunch of his edits, which isn't a great feeling, particularly if you've been mapping that way for a while before anyone noticed
(If OP was using StreetComplete I'd blame StreetComplete for this more than the OP. They used to have a quest for pedestrian walkability that was poorly worded, which they've since removed because it was leading to exactly this kind of confusion.)
pasc1878 · · focus · HN ↗
Your explanation of why edits were reverted makes sense