Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalk symmetry

sent from a phone > On 24. Apr 2018, at 20:56, Tobias Knerr wrote: > > * With separate ways, we don't know which road section a sidewalk > belongs to. > * This knowledge is necessary for many applications. For routing I don’t think it’s very important, an application

Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalk symmetry

25. Apr 2018 07:01 by marc.ge...@gmail.com : > I wonder why those arguments always pop up when we talk about separate > sidewalks and not when we talk about separate cycleways. > AFAIK it is common practice to map cycleways as separate ways in OSM > as soon as there

Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalk symmetry

I wonder why those arguments always pop up when we talk about separate sidewalks and not when we talk about separate cycleways. AFAIK it is common practice to map cycleways as separate ways in OSM as soon as there is a kerb. Don't we encounter the same problems in data processing for cycleways ?

Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalk symmetry

Ed Loach wrote: >where there is a verge so narrow you can step across it without stepping on >the grass. Unless you're with a walker, a pram or a stroller, or in a wheelchair. > or put arbitrary joining ways at intervals. Only useful where there's a real connection anyway, i.e. a route starts

Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalk symmetry

On 24.04.2018 02:17, Clifford Snow wrote: > But if you want > someone to use the data, then map it as separate ways.  That's not the case, and it's a bit frustrating to read this just after I wrote a mail explaining this point. To reiterate: * With separate ways, we don't know which road section

Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalk symmetry

Clifford wrote: > There is a good website that explains the separate way approach > http://opensidewalks.com > I know the people who put it together and they convinced me it's the better > approach. I would say separate ways make more sense in urban USA where you can't cross the road just

Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalk symmetry

As someone who as mapped sidewalks both as metadata to an existing road and as separate ways, my recommendation is to map as separate ways. Let me explain why I recommend separate ways over the metadata approach. Communities are starting to put emphasis on alternatives like public transportation,

Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalk symmetry

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 19:25:12 +0200 Tobias Knerr wrote: > Comparing the mapping styles solely based on ease of mapping would > only make sense if separate ways were able to express the same > information contained in sidewalk tags. Note that some information may not be

[OSM-talk] Sidewalk symmetry

On 18.04.2018 05:03, Andrew Harvey wrote: > highway, surface, maxspeed, maxweight, maxheight, width, oneway, access, > lanes, turn:lanes, lit, parking:lane:left, parking:lane:right, > parking:condition:left, parking:condition:right,parking:lane:left:type, > parking:lane:right:type, etc. The

Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalk symmetry

On 18 April 2018 at 06:30, Jmapb wrote: > (My personal feeling is that that it's better to avoid mapping sidewalks > as separate ways unless there's a compelling reason that would outweigh the > additional data clutter and routing complications. In some circumstances -- > those

[OSM-talk] Sidewalk symmetry

The wiki contains some suggestions/guidelines about when to map sidewalks as separate footways versus when to encode them as tags on the main road. The basic recommendation seems to be that if there's a barrier or even a strip of grass between the two, a separate way is fine and even sometimes