120 lines
5.3 KiB
Gherkin
120 lines
5.3 KiB
Gherkin
@routing @foot @access
|
|
Feature: Foot - Access tags on ways
|
|
# Reference: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
|
|
|
|
Background:
|
|
Given the profile "foot"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Foot - Access tag hierarchy on ways
|
|
Then routability should be
|
|
| highway | access | foot | bothw |
|
|
| footway | | | x |
|
|
| footway | | yes | x |
|
|
| footway | | no | |
|
|
| footway | yes | | x |
|
|
| footway | yes | yes | x |
|
|
| footway | yes | no | |
|
|
| footway | no | | |
|
|
| footway | no | yes | x |
|
|
| footway | no | no | |
|
|
| motorway | | | |
|
|
| motorway | | yes | x |
|
|
| motorway | | no | |
|
|
| motorway | yes | | x |
|
|
| motorway | yes | yes | x |
|
|
| motorway | yes | no | |
|
|
| motorway | no | | |
|
|
| motorway | no | yes | x |
|
|
| motorway | no | no | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Foot - Overwriting implied acccess on ways
|
|
Then routability should be
|
|
| highway | access | foot | bothw |
|
|
| footway | | | x |
|
|
| motorway | | | |
|
|
| footway | no | | |
|
|
| footway | | | x |
|
|
| footway | | no | |
|
|
| motorway | yes | | x |
|
|
| motorway | | | |
|
|
| motorway | | yes | x |
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Foot - Access tags on ways
|
|
Then routability should be
|
|
| access | foot | bothw |
|
|
| | | x |
|
|
| yes | | x |
|
|
| permissive | | x |
|
|
| designated | | x |
|
|
| some_tag | | x |
|
|
| no | | |
|
|
| private | | |
|
|
| agricultural | | |
|
|
| forestry | | |
|
|
| delivery | | |
|
|
| | yes | x |
|
|
| | permissive | x |
|
|
| | designated | x |
|
|
| | some_tag | x |
|
|
| | no | |
|
|
| | private | |
|
|
| | agricultural | |
|
|
| | forestry | |
|
|
| | delivery | |
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Foot - Access tags on both node and way
|
|
Then routability should be
|
|
| access | node/access | bothw |
|
|
| yes | yes | x |
|
|
| yes | no | |
|
|
| yes | some_tag | x |
|
|
| no | yes | |
|
|
| no | no | |
|
|
| no | some_tag | |
|
|
| some_tag | yes | x |
|
|
| some_tag | no | |
|
|
| some_tag | some_tag | x |
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Foot - Access combinations
|
|
Then routability should be
|
|
| highway | access | foot | bothw |
|
|
| motorway | private | yes | x |
|
|
| footway | | permissive | x |
|
|
| track | forestry | permissive | x |
|
|
| footway | yes | no | |
|
|
| primary | | private | |
|
|
| residential | permissive | no | |
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Foot - Ignore access tags for other modes
|
|
Then routability should be
|
|
| highway | boat | motor_vehicle | moped | bothw |
|
|
| river | yes | | | |
|
|
| footway | no | | | x |
|
|
| motorway | | yes | | |
|
|
| footway | | no | | x |
|
|
| motorway | | | yes | |
|
|
| footway | | | no | x |
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Foot - Bridleways when access is explicit
|
|
Then routability should be
|
|
| highway | horse | bicycle | foot | bothw |
|
|
| bridleway | | | yes | x |
|
|
| bridleway | | yes | | |
|
|
| bridleway | designated | | | |
|
|
| bridleway | | | | |
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Foot - a way with missing :forward tag
|
|
Then routability should be
|
|
| highway | bicycle:backward | foot:backward | forw | backw |
|
|
| cycleway | designated | designated | | x |
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Foot - Access combinations
|
|
Then routability should be
|
|
| highway | access | bothw |
|
|
| primary | permissive | x |
|
|
| steps | permissive | x |
|
|
| footway | permissive | x |
|
|
| garbagetag | permissive | x |
|
|
|