Re: [Talk-ca] Sidewalks
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:08 PM, nicholas ingalls nicholas.inga...@gmail.com wrote: My personal preference is to enable the JOSM sidewalk style and then use the sidewalk:right sidewalk:left, sidewalk:both, or sidewalk:none tags on the actual street. The footpaths are just about useless (as in the example above) as they are not related to the street in anyway. So the routing engine couldn't say turn left onto Maple Street. It could only say turn left. If the tags are on the actual street and not separately mapped, it is much easier for a routing engine. I think Bernie has raised an interesting question with a complicated group of replies. I don't think that we will find One Universally True Answer. As a mapper, I don't always add ordinary sidewalks where I see them. Initially, I thought, I have roads and other things to map, I'll worry about sidewalks later. It was the early days of OSM. Available aerial imagery was much more limited and much lower resolution. When higher resolution aerial imagery became available to us, I had a bit of a freak out. Oh my!!! Look at all the PIXELS!!! I can map sidewalks, and, and, and, and, everything!!! And so I did. I added sidewalks in some of the places that already had roads and schools and parks and rivers, etc. Now, I'm not as consistent, I guess. I'll add interesting walkways that aren't simply parallel to a street. I think adding a pedestrian path between neighbourhoods, and adjacent, non-adjoining streets is worthwhile. As a pedestrian, I use those paths to cut the walking distance to the store, or school. But I generally don't add the ordinary sidewalks. Except when I do add them. The points raised by Gordon and Harald, above, are important. There are routing services for pedestrians and cyclists and they can use separately-drawn sidewalks in ways that they can not extract data from road centerline parameters. I make an effort to properly connect new objects that I map with existing sidewalks, even if I'm not planning to map more sidewalks immediately. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Sidewalks
Bonjour all To add my comments on this topic, I never add ordinary sidewalks except if they are physically separated from the street (not adjacent to). If I had to map them, I would use sidewalk:* tags. I still think as Richard wrote: I have roads and other things to map; I'll worry about sidewalks later. However, having this sidewalk wonderings only means is that the map is really getting detailed! Cheers, Daniel From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com] Sent: February-02-13 06:15 To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Sidewalks On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:08 PM, nicholas ingalls nicholas.inga...@gmail.com wrote: My personal preference is to enable the JOSM sidewalk style and then use the sidewalk:right sidewalk:left, sidewalk:both, or sidewalk:none tags on the actual street. The footpaths are just about useless (as in the example above) as they are not related to the street in anyway. So the routing engine couldn't say turn left onto Maple Street. It could only say turn left. If the tags are on the actual street and not separately mapped, it is much easier for a routing engine. I think Bernie has raised an interesting question with a complicated group of replies. I don't think that we will find One Universally True Answer. As a mapper, I don't always add ordinary sidewalks where I see them. Initially, I thought, I have roads and other things to map, I'll worry about sidewalks later. It was the early days of OSM. Available aerial imagery was much more limited and much lower resolution. When higher resolution aerial imagery became available to us, I had a bit of a freak out. Oh my!!! Look at all the PIXELS!!! I can map sidewalks, and, and, and, and, everything!!! And so I did. I added sidewalks in some of the places that already had roads and schools and parks and rivers, etc. Now, I'm not as consistent, I guess. I'll add interesting walkways that aren't simply parallel to a street. I think adding a pedestrian path between neighbourhoods, and adjacent, non-adjoining streets is worthwhile. As a pedestrian, I use those paths to cut the walking distance to the store, or school. But I generally don't add the ordinary sidewalks. Except when I do add them. The points raised by Gordon and Harald, above, are important. There are routing services for pedestrians and cyclists and they can use separately-drawn sidewalks in ways that they can not extract data from road centerline parameters. I make an effort to properly connect new objects that I map with existing sidewalks, even if I'm not planning to map more sidewalks immediately. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Sidewalks
My personal preference is to enable the JOSM sidewalk style and then use the sidewalk:right sidewalk:left, sidewalk:both, or sidewalk:none tags on the actual street. The footpaths are just about useless (as in the example above) as they are not related to the street in anyway. So the routing engine couldn't say turn left onto Maple Street. It could only say turn left. If the tags are on the actual street and not separately mapped, it is much easier for a routing engine. http://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Styles/Sidewalks Cheers, ingalls On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Harald Kliems kli...@gmail.com wrote: Personally I don't map sidewalks like that but I respect local mappers' work and would not change this, as it isn't really wrong. I don't think there's a strong consensus to map sidewalks merely as attributes of the adjoining road, and there are a lot of problems with that approach, too. E.g. how to mapp accessibility features like curb cuts or the need to chop ways into tiny segments in cases where sidewalks appear and disappear. Cheers, Harald. On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Connors, Bernie (SNB) bernie.conn...@snb.ca wrote: I came across this when I was working on Map Roulette connectivity corrections – http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.98773840069771lon=-81.24551922082901zoom=18 I thought it was not advised to digitize sidewalks along urban streets – Are there any other opinions on this? -- Bernie Connors, P.Eng bernie.conn...@unb.ca New Maryland, NB ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca -- Please use encrypted communication whenever possible! Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Sidewalks
I came across this when I was working on Map Roulette connectivity corrections - http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.98773840069771lon=-81.24551922082901zoom=18 I thought it was not advised to digitize sidewalks along urban streets - Are there any other opinions on this? -- Bernie Connors, P.Eng bernie.conn...@unb.camailto:bernie.conn...@unb.ca New Maryland, NB ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Sidewalks
Curious. I wonder if they were trying to get pedestrian routing working. Vaguely reminds me of something I read somewhere for streets maps for people who are blind. Why not ask the person who added them? --G Sent from my iPhone On 2013-01-29, at 20:10, Connors, Bernie (SNB) bernie.conn...@snb.ca wrote: I came across this when I was working on Map Roulette connectivity corrections – http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.98773840069771lon=-81.24551922082901zoom=18 I thought it was not advised to digitize sidewalks along urban streets – Are there any other opinions on this? -- Bernie Connors, P.Eng bernie.conn...@unb.ca New Maryland, NB ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Sidewalks
Personally I don't map sidewalks like that but I respect local mappers' work and would not change this, as it isn't really wrong. I don't think there's a strong consensus to map sidewalks merely as attributes of the adjoining road, and there are a lot of problems with that approach, too. E.g. how to mapp accessibility features like curb cuts or the need to chop ways into tiny segments in cases where sidewalks appear and disappear. Cheers, Harald. On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Connors, Bernie (SNB) bernie.conn...@snb.ca wrote: I came across this when I was working on Map Roulette connectivity corrections – http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.98773840069771lon=-81.24551922082901zoom=18 I thought it was not advised to digitize sidewalks along urban streets – Are there any other opinions on this? -- Bernie Connors, P.Eng bernie.conn...@unb.ca New Maryland, NB ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca -- Please use encrypted communication whenever possible! Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
