Ordnet is a good guideline, but if you look at definition 1.c in the link you gave, you can see the example of "være (i) centrum for NOGET", which translates to "being in the centre for something". Centrum is one of those special words for places and usually doesn't occur in the definite form even though you'd expect it to.
Question, why is går always translated as "walk" and never "go" or "goes" by Duolingo for animals and people but "goes" for "gade" and other non-living things. I recognise non-living things cannot walk. But I believe Danes use går for more than just walk with animals and people and intend at times that they go not that they walk. Is this wrong?
"At gå" is the "standard mode of transport", so to say, like "to go" in English. So you can "go to a place"/"gå til et sted" and it'll just tell you that you arrive there, but not about the means. So when you have a goal mentioned, translating gå with "go" is just fine.
It's more problematic when you don't mention a certain direction, for instance in "Jeg kan gå". This can be a specific mode of transportation now and means "I can walk". Or it still means "I can go" as in "I can leave", depending on the cotext.
Hm. It might be more helpful if you share some of the examples where gå must be translated as "walk". I feel like I'm overlooking something.
Let's say a friend of mine loves walking long distances. In English, he would say "let's walk to the beach" and that would leave no doubt about his intentions. If he uses go instead, then I would ask him something like "go how?".
Now, in Danish, if he says "lad os gå til stranden", how would I know whether he specifically wants to walk or just go there by any means?