Talk:Tag:footway=link

Improper use of connecting a footway=access_aisle to a highway=service or service=parking_aisle

This is a wrong usage of footway link and should be excluded from the wiki to prevent others from making the same mistake even if it has limited "in use". The access aisle connects directly to the centerline of the parking aisle. As per the starting line of the article "connecting other highways to enable routing between them." The aisle already routes to the parking aisle and no link is required. The original proposal does not describe its usage as such either. If you want to get granular you can specify width=* on the highway. For the reason why a service road connecting directly into a primary road doesn't use link or split on the road width and turn into primary link. Mxdanger (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

This has already been discussed extensively on the Forum (link) in the context of crossings. Lumikeiju (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I've added in a "Questioned" ambox to that section in 2975570. Lumikeiju (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

A width tag doesn't solve the issue here at all. I conceptualize the role of footway=link as "Resolving any discrepancies, as needed for foot routing, between the area representation and the centerline representation of features". The area representations of the access_aisle and the parking_aisle would be touching if OSM drew those, but we use centerline representations for both features so if we want to model the length (not the width=*) of the access_aisle correctly then the mapper should stop the way where the paint ends and switch to a link way. If we don't care about the length of the access aisle then just draw it straight through and ignore the paint boundaries. Campbelltree (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)