NOTICE: is no longer in use from 1st March 2024. Please use the OpenStreetMap Community Forum

Sometimes there may be 'no pedestrians' signs across one or more approaches to a traffic light-controlled intersection. This isn't a case where pedestrian=no could be applied, since you're allowed to walk on the road, just not to cross at that point. Is there a way to tag this?

asked 03 Aug '10, 16:55

NE2's gravatar image

accept rate: 9%


The wiki documents highway=crossing + crossing=no for tagging a node where you would expect to be able to cross the street, but where in fact no possibility to cross the street exists.

Unfortunately, this will not solve the problem for applications and is at most informational for other mappers. There still doesn't appear to be a proper solution for this yet.

permanent link

answered 03 Aug '10, 17:05

Tordanik's gravatar image

accept rate: 35%

edited 10 Jun '12, 11:41

I'm not sure exactly where I'd place that. Here's an example intersection; you're not allowed to cross to the southwest corner from either adjacent corner. Say you're getting walking directions from the bus stop to the south, in front of the Chevron, to Centra Care to the north. You're not allowed to cross Hotel Plaza Boulevard at the light (though, now that I look at it, I think you can cross northbound, just not southbound; assume the restriction northbound for now). (Here foot=no on SR 535 between the lights works, but more generally it won't.)

(03 Aug '10, 18:49) NE2

Not sure I understand this. What country are you in where "no possibility to cross the street exists" ? Here in the UK, the only place where you can't cross a street is across a motorway.

(23 Aug '10, 00:30) rmw

In Florida (USA) it's illegal to cross the street between two adjacent traffic light controlled intersections (in other words there are no intersections between).

(23 Aug '10, 01:25) NE2

use foot=no or access:foot=no.

This is an important information for pedestrian routing software and of course shall be mapped.

permanent link

answered 07 Jan '11, 15:58

Kartograefin's gravatar image

accept rate: 0%


I'd go with foot=no, since access:foot is redundant in the OSM sense.

(08 Jan '11, 04:20) Baloo Uriza

The tag [access:]foot=no doesn't refer to crossing a road, but means that you are not allowed to walk along the road. So it is not appropriate for the situation in the question:

"This isn't a case where pedestrian=no (I assume he meant foot=no) could be applied, since you're allowed to walk on the road, just not to cross at that point."

(10 Jun '12, 11:39) Tordanik

The 'no pedestrian' sign is an informational sign. Just like the 'no exit' sign it tells the drivers of an missing feature. In OSM we do not map missing features, only features that are there.

You should mark the crossings with highway=crossing and crossing=* and don't map the 'no pedestrian'.

permanent link

answered 23 Aug '10, 16:18

Gnonthgol's gravatar image

Gnonthgol ♦
accept rate: 16%

That's not at all true. It's legal to walk (against traffic) on a road without sidewalks, and to cross others at intersections without defined crossings. The 'no pedestrians' sign means that you're not allowed to do what's normally legal.

(25 Aug '10, 12:27) NE2

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here



Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text]( "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:


question asked: 03 Aug '10, 16:55

question was seen: 7,471 times

last updated: 10 Jun '12, 11:41

NOTICE: is no longer in use from 1st March 2024. Please use the OpenStreetMap Community Forum