Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
Anthony wrote: You seem to have missed the rest of my post. I was arguing that a road with no pavement but with a shoulder is *not* unsafe. OTOH, if the road has no shoulder, and traffic traveling at 55 mph, and only 1 car a day, I'm not walking down it. I think the POINT here is that UNLESS there is a legal restriction on walking down a road, then CAR DRIVERS should be aware of the fact that there may be other people using the road? In the case being discussed, it is not clear if the woman was following the correct procedures when walking on RURAL roads ... wearing something highly visible ... walking facing on-coming traffic. MANY busy rural roads in the UK are not particularly 'pedestrian friendly', but they may well be the ONLY way to get from A to B by foot. I was under the impression that in the US in many cases there are even fewer footpath routes going the same way as the roads? 'Safe' for pedestrians to use is simply undefinable as we have already decided when trying to identify URBAN areas where one would not walk on one's own! MAPS can't define what is safe. But they should at least show alternatives where they are available? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On 2 June 2010 17:32, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: 'Safe' for pedestrians to use is simply undefinable as we have already decided when trying to identify URBAN areas where one would not walk on one's own! MAPS I disagree that this is an undefinable problem, as I pointed out before you only need to come up with a base line, could an average human adult walk down this way without getting hit by a car? Would an average human adult walk through some seedy part of town without getting mugged? If you wanted something more definite, police injury records could provide alternative verifiability, if as John pointed out 5 people were hurt or killed trying to cross a road than it's obviously not safe. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
2010/6/2 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com: With many high-speed highways (such as Interstate Highways in the USA, Autobahn in Germany, etc.) you may have wide shoulders, but pedestrian use on the shoulders is inadvisable and/or illegal, because crossing to the other side means having to judge the speed of multiple lanes of traffic. don't know for US Interstates, but for all the German Autobahns it is legally forbidden to use it by foot, horse, bicycle, tractors, any other motorized vehicle that has 50ccm and less and any other vehicle that has a maxspeed equal or below 60 (or 80km/h, don't remember clearly). The same applies to Kraftfahrstraßen, which are roads signed with http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Zeichen_331.svgfiletimestamp=20060729145019 This one (which can besides trunks also be primaries or maybe secondary roads) we tag additionally with motorroad=yes. These are legal restrictions and I don't expect routers to lead you there on foot. On all other roads (no matter if inside or outside closed settlements, and given that there are no other explicit restrictions) you are legally entitled to walk, ride your bike/horse, ... even though you usually wouldn't (have to) do so on bigger streets. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On 2 June 2010 18:49, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: As others have said, foot=no when pedestrians are legally allowed is a I was one of them if you check my replies. bad idea. As long as you walk against traffic, drivers will usually see you, and you can easily see and get out of the way of any vehicles Just because they can see you doesn't make it a good idea to walk along there, as I pointed out before there isn't a single criteria that deems something safe or unsafe, it's usually a combination of factors. Perhaps the best way to think of this is foot_unsafe=yes if it is likely to be a bad idea... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: John Smith wrote: If you wanted something more definite, police injury records could provide alternative verifiability, if as John pointed out 5 people were hurt or killed trying to cross a road than it's obviously not safe. Only if you do the same for other vehicles - highway with lots of crashes means motor_vehicle=no :) As others have said, foot=no when pedestrians are legally allowed is a bad idea. As long as you walk against traffic, drivers will usually see you, and you can easily see and get out of the way of any vehicles unless the paved area extends all the way to the edge of the right-of-way. The idea that one should not walk on certain roadways where walking is legal, simply because certain drivers can't drive, is ridiculous, and leads to legal restrictions that prohibit reasonable Nathan, the problem is providing good routing instructions to average people. If we can't provide that we will loose people to Google Map Maker, Waze, Tom Tom etc. -- There are many reasons why a routing engine should not follow the legal definition of right of way: 1. Safety (as discussed here). 2. Permissive. Fortunately a tag was defined for it long ago. 3. An illegal barrier (gate or fence) has been erected. And you may think that this strange, but it happens frequently in South Africa. In fact, it has happened that the municipality wanted to remove one of them and the residents association obtained an injunction against the municipality on the basis that removing it will cause the crime rate to return to unacceptable levels. So sometimes it is not even possible to determine the legal status of a right of way. 4. Driving on some tracks it will cause unnecessary environmental damage, like erosion. Sometimes such an opinion is debatable, but there are cases where a clear majority of local residents feel the same way. Usually the authorities will signpost it (effectively removing the right of way), but that may not always be the case. 5. Other things that we can't forsee right now. When I map, I just want to create a useful map. And when I write software it should be backward compatible with old data and forward compatible with new data and still give reasonable results. I don't want to waste time on finding the legal status of everything. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
I agree that foot_unsafe=yes would probably be a good compromise, as it would say, yes, you can go this way, but it is risky.. This would be particularly suitable for routes that are riskier under some conditions than others, such as roads with narrow shoulders, risky to walk on after dark. --Original Message-- From: John Smith Sender: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org To: Nathan Edgars II Cc: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off... Sent: Jun 2, 2010 4:10 AM On 2 June 2010 18:49, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: As others have said, foot=no when pedestrians are legally allowed is a I was one of them if you check my replies. bad idea. As long as you walk against traffic, drivers will usually see you, and you can easily see and get out of the way of any vehicles Just because they can see you doesn't make it a good idea to walk along there, as I pointed out before there isn't a single criteria that deems something safe or unsafe, it's usually a combination of factors. Perhaps the best way to think of this is foot_unsafe=yes if it is likely to be a bad idea... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On 2 June 2010 22:06, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: I agree that foot_unsafe=yes would probably be a good compromise, as it would say, yes, you can go this way, but it is risky.. This would be particularly suitable for routes that are riskier under some conditions than others, such as roads with narrow shoulders, risky to walk on after dark. You could extend it a little and explain more specifically: unsafe:foot=narrow/fast_traffic/muggers/etc ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: As others have said, foot=no when pedestrians are legally allowed is a bad idea. As long as you walk against traffic, drivers will usually see you, and you can easily see and get out of the way of any vehicles unless the paved area extends all the way to the edge of the right-of-way. The idea that one should not walk on certain roadways where walking is legal, simply because certain drivers can't drive, is ridiculous, and leads to legal restrictions that prohibit reasonable Nathan, the problem is providing good routing instructions to average people. If we can't provide that we will loose people to Google Map Maker, Waze, Tom Tom etc. Then we'll lose them. If they want incorrect tagging, we don't have to cater to them. There are many reasons why a routing engine should not follow the legal definition of right of way: 1. Safety (as discussed here). 2. Permissive. Fortunately a tag was defined for it long ago. 3. An illegal barrier (gate or fence) has been erected. And you may think that this strange, but it happens frequently in South Africa. In fact, it has happened that the municipality wanted to remove one of them and the residents association obtained an injunction against the municipality on the basis that removing it will cause the crime rate to return to unacceptable levels. So sometimes it is not even possible to determine the legal status of a right of way. 4. Driving on some tracks it will cause unnecessary environmental damage, like erosion. Sometimes such an opinion is debatable, but there are cases where a clear majority of local residents feel the same way. Usually the authorities will signpost it (effectively removing the right of way), but that may not always be the case. 5. Other things that we can't forsee right now. We're not talking about cases where the public may have a theoretical right to use a way, but it's de facto private. We're talking about the case of a high-traffic road where pedestrians are allowed, despite the wishes of bad drivers. When I map, I just want to create a useful map. And when I write software it should be backward compatible with old data and forward compatible with new data and still give reasonable results. I don't want to waste time on finding the legal status of everything. Usually legal status, or at least de facto status, is simple: is there a sign prohibiting pedestrians? Otherwise you're making people who want to walk somewhere that's only accessible by a dangerous road waste time finding if it's legal to do so. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
Good suggestion. --Original Message-- From: John Smith To: John Eldredge Cc: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off... Sent: Jun 2, 2010 7:19 AM On 2 June 2010 22:06, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: I agree that foot_unsafe=yes would probably be a good compromise, as it would say, yes, you can go this way, but it is risky.. This would be particularly suitable for routes that are riskier under some conditions than others, such as roads with narrow shoulders, risky to walk on after dark. You could extend it a little and explain more specifically: unsafe:foot=narrow/fast_traffic/muggers/etc -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On 02.06.2010 14:19, John Smith wrote: You could extend it a little and explain more specifically: unsafe:foot=narrow/fast_traffic/muggers/etc routing:hints:foot:avoid=yes routing:hints:foot:comment=fast traffic routing:hints:motorcar:avoid=yes routing:hints:motorcar:comment=street layout hard to follow for non-locals routing:hints:motorcar:prefer=yes routing:hints:motorcar:comment=faster traffic than the parallel primary routing:hints:bike:delay:1=40s routing:hints:bike:delay:1:times=mo-sa:0700-1300,mo-fr:1700-1900 routing:hints:bike:delay:2=20s routing:hints:bike:delay:2:times=su:1400-22:00 routing:hints:bike:comment=foot traffic avoidance costs time Just the seed of an idea... Henry ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On 2 June 2010 23:03, Henry Loenwind he...@loenwind.info wrote: routing:hints:bike:comment=foot traffic avoidance costs time Looks good, except I'd use note instead of comment, only because it is more commonly used already. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
Anthony wrote: Room to get off the road. That's what I was referring to as a shoulder. Here in the third world (Derbyshire, England) we call those hedges. If I avoided walking along roads without a shoulder or sidewalk of any sort I wouldn't get very far. I think that we're hitting cultural differences here. When I've been in the US there seems to be more of a general assumption that non-residential roads are for cars only and other paths (if provided, if you're very lucky) are for cyclists and the tiny number of pedestrians. In the UK the assumption has historically been that most roads are for everyone, with cars if necessary giving way to horses and pedestrian traffic. Obviously some roads (e.g. motorways, some trunk links) are signed exceptions. It simply isn't possible to globally say that a road without a sidewalk is safe or unsafe (as opposed to legal) based on its attributes, unless someone's been there and said yes, I've been down there and it's safe to walk down - even then it'll vary by time of day / year. Does anyone already use tags to indicate that? How widely are they in use? I can see lots of suggestions further down the thread but am more interested in what people are already using. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
Nic Roets wrote: Nathan, the problem is providing good routing instructions to average people. If we can't provide that we will loose people to Google Map Maker, Waze, Tom Tom etc. One advantage that OSM has over the commercial people is that routes get mapped proportionately to how real people actually want to use them rather than what's commercial available or commercially viable to re-map. If you try and use Google Maps for pedestrian routing in England it'll avoid major roads, but it also ignores the plethora of footpaths (and more recently cycleways) that are available*. I don't know of anyone else (and in the UK outside of towns that includes the Ordnance Survey) who has up-to-date non-road pedestrian paths available. Other than in exceptional circumstances (e.g. Postman Pat) I doubt that there's any money in pedestrian routing. Cheers, Andy * Google's public transport (essentially bus) routing is excellent where it's available though - although it does seem to assume that you'd rather wait an hour for another bus rather than walk a couple of miles though! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: When I map, I just want to create a useful map. And when I write software it should be backward compatible with old data and forward compatible with new data and still give reasonable results. I don't want to waste time on finding the legal status of everything. Then don't use tags which indicate the legal status. Easy peasy, right? The rest of your post focused on what a routing engine should do. But this discussion isn't about the routing engine. Different routing engines are going to have different rules. This is about the data, and the data should be unambiguous. That means not using the same tag for illegal and bad for the environment and unsafe. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On 06/02/2010 03:03 PM, Henry Loenwind wrote: routing:hints:motorcar:avoid=yes routing:hints:motorcar:comment=street layout hard to follow for non-locals routing:hints:motorcar:prefer=yes routing:hints:motorcar:comment=faster traffic than the parallel primary Nice.. +1 This would be nice for Norway.. Where some of the parallel roads can be very bad... routing:hints:motorcar:avoid=yes routing:hints:motorcar:note=parallel road have a lane in each direction, and fits to cars at the same time This could help routing away from one-lane road, with a lower quality than this road [1], that are 100m shorter than the 2-laner. (one each way). [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Norway-Rv7-important_single_lane_road.jpg This is a common problem with GPS in Norway. If this is the best road trough the aria ( E 16 ) http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Kvamskleiva,_Vang.jpg , then you do not want the second best... *E 16* is the designation of a main west-east road through Norhern Ireland, Scotland, Norway and soon Sweden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway -- Michael Eric Menk Linkedin: http://no.linkedin.com/in/mikemenk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:07 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 June 2010 09:52, Tim McNamara paperl...@timmcnamara.co.nz wrote: Still, even if they breached the duty of care, the injured woman will still need to establish that the breach was a cause of her injury. The only thing that is new in all this is pedestrian routing, people have been following incorrect satnav routes for ages and usually driving into places they shouldn't as a result, people seem to love to be told what to do: http://www.intology.com/science-technology/satnav-causes-30-accidents-in-uk-each-year/ That's an interesting article. But the details are sketchy: 300,000 out of a total of how many ? Are there any controlled studies where they establish cause and effect ? e.g. take away Satnav from some drivers and see what happens, or insist that they use it and see what happens. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On 1 June 2010 17:04, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: That's an interesting article. But the details are sketchy: 300,000 out of a total of how many ? Are there any controlled studies where I don't think there needs another total, I'm guessing people blamed the accident on their satnav when reporting damage to their insurance company, people always like to put the fault on other people/things, the satnav can't defend itself. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
1... What's the correct way of tagging a street as 'dangerous/suicidal' for pedestrians in OSM? (Couldnt find an answer in the wiki) Recently come across a road in my area (London, UK) that had no pavement and which clearly should be avoided by pedestrains, but there were no restrictions in place for pedestrians (apart from common sense). The UK also does not have restrictions on pedestrains being on roads that some other countries have. So, in my opinion, foot=no would be wrong because it incorrectly indicates pedestrians are not allowed. I guess foot=dangerous would be useful for routing software, but is there agreed way of tagging these problem roads. 2...Had a look at that American road in Google Satelitte ( http://tinyurl.com/33dvn78) If I was that women I'd be more worried about the colour of the Golf Courses. That's the most unnatural shade of green I've ever seen. Jason ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On 1 June 2010 22:33, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com wrote: 2...Had a look at that American road in Google Satelitte (http://tinyurl.com/33dvn78) If I was that women I'd be more worried about the colour of the Golf Courses. That's the most unnatural shade of green I've ever seen. Google has done some nasty tweaking of colours in the last 6 months or so, I really can't stand looking at their sat imagery now because it looks so badly corrected. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On 1 June 2010 13:33, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com wrote: 1... What's the correct way of tagging a street as 'dangerous/suicidal' for pedestrians in OSM? (Couldnt find an answer in the wiki) Recently come across a road in my area (London, UK) that had no pavement and which clearly should be avoided by pedestrains, but there were no restrictions in place for pedestrians (apart from common sense). The UK also does not have restrictions on pedestrains being on roads that some other countries have. So, in my opinion, foot=no would be wrong because it incorrectly indicates pedestrians are not allowed. I guess foot=dangerous would be useful for routing software, but is there agreed way of tagging these problem roads. The road should simply be marked as having no pavement/sidewalk. Something like pavement=yes/no is a start at least. It's best to avoid subject assessments like how dangerous a road is. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote: On 1 June 2010 13:33, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com wrote: 1... What's the correct way of tagging a street as 'dangerous/suicidal' for pedestrians in OSM? (Couldnt find an answer in the wiki) Recently come across a road in my area (London, UK) that had no pavement and which clearly should be avoided by pedestrains, but there were no restrictions in place for pedestrians (apart from common sense). The UK also does not have restrictions on pedestrains being on roads that some other countries have. So, in my opinion, foot=no would be wrong because it incorrectly indicates pedestrians are not allowed. I guess foot=dangerous would be useful for routing software, but is there agreed way of tagging these problem roads. The road should simply be marked as having no pavement/sidewalk. Something like pavement=yes/no is a start at least. It's best to avoid subject assessments like how dangerous a road is. Hmm, is shoulder a fairly universal term? Because shoulder=no would be much more daunting to me than pavement=no. Also, if the street really is dangerous/suicidal, is there any chance you can report it to the govt. so they can either fix it or ban pedestrians? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote: The road should simply be marked as having no pavement/sidewalk. Something like pavement=yes/no is a start at least. It's best to avoid subject assessments like how dangerous a road is. Ideally, yes. But routing software can't possibly process the logic correctly in cases like these. Some roads may not have a pavement, but they are safe for pedestrians due to the lack of traffic. In other cases extreme footways should not be used because of crime. If you don't trust your own opinion, ask a few locals if they would advise a tourist to walk there. If they say no, then tag them with foot=no and add a note describing why you did it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Elena of Valhalla elena.valha...@gmail.com wrote: On 6/1/10, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: If you don't trust your own opinion, ask a few locals if they would advise a tourist to walk there. If they say no, then tag them with foot=no and add a note describing why you did it. I don't think this would be correct: foot=no usually means you are not legally allowed to walk here, not this road may be dangerous for you to walk on using a different tag may be appropriate, however Which one, or do I have to invent a new one ? The problem is that tagging standards change faster than the map can be reviewed. For example, I did most of my mapping during 2008. At stage the access=no tag indicated that Access by this transport mode not permitted or unsuitable. dangerous is one form of being unsuitable. I'd much rather use the tag that is the best approximation of reality and add a note if it is really necessary. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote: The road should simply be marked as having no pavement/sidewalk. Something like pavement=yes/no is a start at least. It's best to avoid subject assessments like how dangerous a road is. Ideally, yes. But routing software can't possibly process the logic correctly in cases like these. Some roads may not have a pavement, but they are safe for pedestrians due to the lack of traffic. In other cases extreme footways should not be used because of crime. What does lack of traffic matter? Unless you mean absolutely no traffic, I don't think that makes much difference. If the road is unsafe to walk on, I'm not going to walk down it whether there's 1 car a day or 10,000. If there's a low enough speed limit maybe. If you don't trust your own opinion, ask a few locals if they would advise a tourist to walk there. If they say no, then tag them with foot=no and add a note describing why you did it. So because a few locals wouldn't advise a tourist to walk there you're going to tag the road equivalently to one that is illegal to walk on? I think we've gotta do better than that. I'd prefer the ambiguous foot=dangerous to foot=no. Especially if you're saying that high traffic + no pavement = dangerous (I've walked on plenty of roads with high traffic and no pavement - as long as they have a shoulder I wouldn't tag them as foot=no, never, way too dangerous, I'd tag them as foot=try to find a better route, but if you must, use caution. How about foot=destination? :) I'm kidding, but it'd be better (and more accurate) than foot=no. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Ideally, yes. But routing software can't possibly process the logic correctly in cases like these. Some roads may not have a pavement, but they are safe for pedestrians due to the lack of traffic. In other cases extreme footways should not be used because of crime. What does lack of traffic matter? Unless you mean absolutely no traffic, I don't think that makes much difference. If the road is unsafe to walk on, I'm not going to walk down it whether there's 1 car a day or 10,000. If there's a low enough speed limit maybe. By that logic you should never leave your house. What if a storm suddenly appears and you get hit by lightning ? As traffic volumes increase, following distances decrease and drivers become overloaded with all the information. Their view may also be obscured by the traffic. And if the oncoming lane is also full of traffic, it gives less space for drives to take evasive action. I've had a number of close calls where I was cycling and a driver overtook the traffic on the outside at high speed i.e. on the left in a country with left hand traffic. But I guess that's largely a developing country problem. How about foot=destination? :) I'm kidding, but it'd be better (and more accurate) than foot=no. I won't argue with that. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
2010/6/1 Anthony o...@inbox.org: The road should simply be marked as having no pavement/sidewalk. Something like pavement=yes/no is a start at least. It's best to avoid subject assessments like how dangerous a road is. Hmm, is shoulder a fairly universal term? Because shoulder=no would be much more daunting to me than pavement=no. Not that I am native, but I think that shoulder is a different term than sidewalk/pavement, because it can also be unpaved, while a pavement IMHO should be paved. A shoulder is simply the side of the road (I guess), kept free from traffic, while a pavement is designed for pedestrians. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:43 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/6/1 Anthony o...@inbox.org: The road should simply be marked as having no pavement/sidewalk. Something like pavement=yes/no is a start at least. It's best to avoid subject assessments like how dangerous a road is. Hmm, is shoulder a fairly universal term? Because shoulder=no would be much more daunting to me than pavement=no. Not that I am native, but I think that shoulder is a different term than sidewalk/pavement, because it can also be unpaved, while a pavement IMHO should be paved. A shoulder is simply the side of the road (I guess), kept free from traffic, while a pavement is designed for pedestrians. Perhaps bikeshedding here, but if you were to ask me to walk on the pavement I'd look at you strangely. To me (and to many Americans) pavement implies the road surface itself, not the path along the side of the road. -- Jeff Ollie ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Looking more closely, there is a sidewalk, which turns into a cycleway (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/40967519), about 50 feet from the roadway, on the southbound side which is the same side she was walking on. And if she had been using the sidewalk while heading north on Main St, it would have led her directly to that sidewalk. Interesting thing about that is that the cycleway shows up in Mapnik and OsmaRender, but doesn't in CloudMade's maps, and CloudMade doesn't use the cycleway for routing. In fact CloudMade gives a nearly identical route to Google. Does CloudMade's routing engine ignore highway=cycleway? -- Jeff Ollie ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
Jeffrey, when the thread was started the cycleway was incorrectly tagged, but I fixed it soon afterwards. Cloudmade will catch up soon enough. On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Jeffrey Ollie j...@ocjtech.us wrote: On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Looking more closely, there is a sidewalk, which turns into a cycleway (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/40967519), about 50 feet from the roadway, on the southbound side which is the same side she was walking on. And if she had been using the sidewalk while heading north on Main St, it would have led her directly to that sidewalk. Interesting thing about that is that the cycleway shows up in Mapnik and OsmaRender, but doesn't in CloudMade's maps, and CloudMade doesn't use the cycleway for routing. In fact CloudMade gives a nearly identical route to Google. Does CloudMade's routing engine ignore highway=cycleway? -- Jeff Ollie ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:38 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 2 June 2010 10:23, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: You seem to have missed the rest of my post. I was arguing that a road with no pavement but with a shoulder is *not* unsafe. OTOH, if the road has no shoulder, and traffic traveling at 55 mph, and only 1 car a day, I'm not walking down it. My mother often goes for walks on roads that have 3 or 4 times that amount of traffic at that speed, and she isn't the only one. It's perfectly safe to do so because there is room to get off the road and you can usually hear them coming, especially when it's a B-Double* instead of a car, I've never heard of any pedestrians being clipped or killed. Room to get off the road. That's what I was referring to as a shoulder. The amount of traffic nor the speed they travel at nor type of traffic doesn't inherently make walking on a road unsafe. Agreed. 100%. I have no idea of the legality of walking along roads outside towns, but hitchhikers do it often and I don't think they get arrested. Here's the (relevant) law in Florida: Where sidewalks are not provided, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall, when practicable, walk only on the shoulder on the left side of the roadway in relation to the pedestrian's direction of travel, facing traffic which may approach from the opposite direction. So, technically, here in Florida, walking on the roadway when there is a shoulder available (and practicable) would be illegal. Interestingly, shoulder does not seem to be defined in the law, but I've always assumed it meant the part of the right of way (paved or unpaved) which was able to be walked upon and which was not part of the roadway. However I think it would be a great idea to indicate the difference between legally disallowed and just not a good idea due to personal safety, I don't think re-using the foot tag is a good idea, because it might be legal, but not safe to do late at night because you'll get mugged etc etc etc. Best case scenario, if we really want to be able to produce adequate walking directions for people unfamiliar with the route, would be to map the entire right of way as one or more areas with surface=* designations. Anything short of that is probably going to be insufficient, because there is so much variation as to what people would consider safe enough (between different people, and even between different times and scenarios - if I'm taking my kids with me I might want a 30 ft. wide shoulder but if I'm walking alone a much smaller one would be acceptable). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On 2 June 2010 12:04, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: So, technically, here in Florida, walking on the roadway when there is a shoulder available (and practicable) would be illegal. Interestingly, shoulder does not seem to be defined in the law, but I've always assumed it meant the part of the right of way (paved or unpaved) which was able to be walked upon and which was not part of the roadway. The shoulder of the roadway is usually provided for a couple of reasons, firstly it can help prevent the edge of the road way breaking up when large or very large trucks need to pull over a bit to pass oncoming traffic, it also allows a car to get off the road if they break down, I don't think they were intended for pedestrians :) Best case scenario, if we really want to be able to produce adequate walking directions for people unfamiliar with the route, would be to map the entire right of way as one or more areas with surface=* designations. Anything short of that is probably going to be insufficient, because there is so much variation as to what people would consider safe enough (between different people, and even between different times and scenarios - if I'm taking my kids with me I might want a 30 ft. wide shoulder but if I'm walking alone a much smaller one would be acceptable). If you want 10m/30' wide shoulder some kind of width tag would be more appropriate than indicating a dangerous path or not. At the very basic level all we can assume is an older teenager or adult is using the map data in some fashion, for other groups we would need additional tags to indicate additional things, but if it isn't safe for an average adult it won't be safe for any other groups either. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On 5/31/2010 4:36 PM, John Smith wrote: Her lawyers claim Google is liable because it did not warn her that the route would not offer a safe place for a pedestrian to walk. Did Google add their notice after the fact? *Walking directions are in beta.* Use caution -- This route may be missing sidewalks or pedestrian paths. Thanks, N. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
Hi, Nakor wrote: Did Google add their notice after the fact? I am trying to make it a habit to read articles before I reply to them and have already found it saves me some embarassment. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On 5/31/2010 5:29 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Nakor wrote: Did Google add their notice after the fact? I am trying to make it a habit to read articles before I reply to them and have already found it saves me some embarassment. Bye Frederik They claim the warning was not displayed on the Blackberry. Did Google add the notice to the BlackBerry after that? Thanks, N. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On 1 June 2010 07:29, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Nakor wrote: Did Google add their notice after the fact? I am trying to make it a habit to read articles before I reply to them and have already found it saves me some embarassment. In this case it doesn't matter if there is a notice or not, I personally wouldn't go and play on a busy road just because some mapping software suggests it's a good idea :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:40 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 June 2010 07:29, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Nakor wrote: Did Google add their notice after the fact? I am trying to make it a habit to read articles before I reply to them and have already found it saves me some embarassment. In this case it doesn't matter if there is a notice or not, I personally wouldn't go and play on a busy road just because some mapping software suggests it's a good idea :) She wasn't playing, she was walking to her destination. I can't tell from the pictures whether it was her fault for following the route, her fault for walking on the wrong side of the road, her fault for not staying close enough to the side of the road, the government's fault for not banning pedestrians, the government's fault for setting too high of a speed limit, or the car driver's fault. From the aerials it does look as though there was enough room on at least one side of the road to walk (it wasn't a paved sidewalk, but whatever). Ridiculous that she'd try to blame Google, though. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:40 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 1 June 2010 07:29, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Nakor wrote: Did Google add their notice after the fact? I am trying to make it a habit to read articles before I reply to them and have already found it saves me some embarassment. In this case it doesn't matter if there is a notice or not, I personally wouldn't go and play on a busy road just because some mapping software suggests it's a good idea :) She wasn't playing, she was walking to her destination. I can't tell from the pictures whether it was her fault for following the route, her fault for walking on the wrong side of the road, her fault for not staying close enough to the side of the road, the government's fault for not banning pedestrians, the government's fault for setting too high of a speed limit, or the car driver's fault. From the aerials it does look as though there was enough room on at least one side of the road to walk (it wasn't a paved sidewalk, but whatever). Ridiculous that she'd try to blame Google, though. Looking more closely, there is a sidewalk, which turns into a cycleway ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/40967519), about 50 feet from the roadway, on the southbound side which is the same side she was walking on. And if she had been using the sidewalk while heading north on Main St, it would have led her directly to that sidewalk. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On 1 June 2010 09:23, Nakor nakor@gmail.com wrote: On 5/31/2010 4:36 PM, John Smith wrote: Her lawyers claim Google is liable because it did not warn her that the route would not offer a safe place for a pedestrian to walk. Did Google add their notice after the fact? *Walking directions are in beta.* Use caution – This route may be missing sidewalks or pedestrian paths. Here's a case from NZ where something similar happened that didn't lead to injury. Until this article was posted, Google Maps directed people through Wellington's bus tunnel, a 1 way tunnel which barely has enough width for buses to travel through. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3552037/Google-maps-off-course-with-walk-through-bus-tunnel At that incident Goolge's response was: Google spokeswoman Annie Baxter said the walking directions search function in Google Maps was still at an experimental phase. We clearly advise people to use caution as routes might be missing footpaths or pedestrian-friendly paths. This implies that they they're undertaking a responsibility to notify people when routes are generated. I guess if the BlackBerry version doesn't include the disclaimer, there's an argument to say that Google didn't meet its (self-imposed?) duty of care to the consumers. Still, even if they breached the duty of care, the injured woman will still need to establish that the breach was a cause of her injury. Tim. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
On 1 June 2010 09:52, Tim McNamara paperl...@timmcnamara.co.nz wrote: Still, even if they breached the duty of care, the injured woman will still need to establish that the breach was a cause of her injury. The only thing that is new in all this is pedestrian routing, people have been following incorrect satnav routes for ages and usually driving into places they shouldn't as a result, people seem to love to be told what to do: http://www.intology.com/science-technology/satnav-causes-30-accidents-in-uk-each-year/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
