Talk:Tag:area:highway=footway

Possible routing issues

There is a paragraph saying "Combination of highway=footway + area=yes is incorrect, because it causes routing services to break down." but won't routers probably use the area border to route? (basically ignoring area=yes and using it as a closed footway); they won't create a route across the area, but it really won't break the routing from what I see. --naoliv (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Rendering issues

Not rendered without highway=footway + area=yes, was checking Berlin an Warsaw as references.

See discussion in https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/180 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Squares and plazas mention

I read:

"This tag is not the same as highway=footway + area=yes which represents a non-linear feature such as a square or plaza where multi-directional travel is possible."

Isn't the most established method to map "non-linear feature such as a square or plaza" highway=pedestrian + area=yes instead? There's even a paragraph about it Tag:highway=pedestrian#Squares and plazas, also iD has a preset for highway=pedestrian + area=yes while throws a warning for highway=footway + area=yes. Is this an error (footway instead of pedestrian) or an alternative method described here? If it's an alternative method, I would at least mention that another more established method exists, and that iD throws a warning --Ivanbranco (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

No, that's only how it's casually (mis)used. It's not "pedestrian area". If you follow the logic and original, highway=pedestrian means pedestrianized street. It should be physically capable of vehicular use, for those large ones connected to surrounding carriageways. For smaller or physically blocked ones, highway=footway + area=yes can be used. Tag:highway=footway#Areas
—— Kovposch (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)