Tag:foot=yes
 foot = yes
|
 |
| Description |
|---|
Roads and other objects where the public has a legally-enshrined right for access on foot. 
|
| Group: restrictions |
| Used on these elements |
    |
| Useful combination |
| See also |
| Status: de facto |
| Tools for this tag |
|
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=yesinstead offoot=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 offoot=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=designatedto 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=yesorfoot=permissive) or the explicit signagefoot=designated. This is the consequence of many values inaccess=*answering different questions. - Do not use
foot=yesin combination with aguidepostormap, usehiking=*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.