Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

> no, it isn't a pedestrian way, it is a street with sidewalk, it is not the same for routing. There is certainly a dedicated pedestrian (and maybe cycling) way there: the sidewalk. If the sidewalk:right* keys are meant to only describe features of the street, then they are complementary to,

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

sent from a phone > On 15. Jul 2017, at 08:13, Marc Gemis wrote: > > I think adding sidewalks might benefit pedestrian routing adding driveways benefits pedestrian routing as well, because you can consider all those little crossings as potentially dangerous, and route

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

Le 15. 07. 17 à 19:06, Nick Bolten a écrit : > > marc marc wrote: > > For wheelchair routing. >> If all crossing have a lower kerb, it is maybe enough to add >> sidewalk:both:wheelchair=yes to the street. > wheelchair=yes should be used sparingly, you are right, i use it only when there is no

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

> marc marc wrote: > > For wheelchair routing. > If all crossing have a lower kerb, it is maybe enough to add > sidewalk:both:wheelchair=yes to the street. wheelchair=yes should be used sparingly, because it's making an editorial decision on behalf of wheelchair users, who actually have a wide

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

> On Jul 15, 2017, at 7:04 PM, Svavar Kjarrval wrote: > > Just to be clear: Is it valid, in your opinion, to connect the end of a > footway along a street, directly to the street itself? If the street becomes the route, I say yes, especially if there is no reasonable

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Svavar Kjarrval wrote: >>> where the footway ends >>> prematurely, the routing software doesn't know it may suggest such a >>> "jump" onto the street or not, >> the end of the footway must be connected to the street if you are >> able/allowed

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

Le 15. 07. 17 à 12:04, Svavar Kjarrval a écrit : > This point is demonstrated in my quoted example [2]. > Mapzen assumes the user can jump over the road > (or assume the user is already there) and walk a few steps, Your demonstration is only that a wrong map create sometimes a wrong routing

Re: [Tagging] highspeed=yes

Le 14. 07. 17 à 19:01, Michael Reichert a écrit : > - If a track qualifies to have highspeed=yes, should the whole line > (including the slow sections at its beginning and end where it leaves > the older parts of the network or runs through existing stations) get > highspeed=yes? If a line

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

On fös 14.júl 2017 11:08, marc marc wrote: > Le 14. 07. 17 à 12:20, Svavar Kjarrval a écrit : >> A street with a sidewalk on either side but no marked crossings: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/64.08800/-21.89846 >> (Sidenote: If one tries to route from no. 73 to 42, >> GraphHopper

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

Le 15. 07. 17 à 08:13, Marc Gemis a écrit : >> On Jul 14, 2017, at 11:32 PM, Nick Bolten wrote: >>> --> need to add all driveways? > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:56 PM, John Willis wrote: >> This is generally a good idea - and to make sure they share a node. >

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

> On Jul 15, 2017, at 4:18 PM, Nick Bolten wrote: > > sort (not unlike a *_link for roads) This was my reasoning for highway= footway_link earlier, perhaps highway=footway_routing might be a more accurate tag. =} Javbw. ___

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

> On Jul 15, 2017, at 3:13 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > > My neighbour's driveway is longer than > mine (it's a company) and now OsmAnd insists on taking his, because it > comes closer to my house. Admittedly, I don’t map a lot of residential driveways (because most

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

To Marc: > Why ? What is the benefit of adding driveways of 3-5 meters long ? I experimented with it in my neighborhood and the only thing it does is confuse navigation programs. My neighbour's driveway is longer than mine (it's a company) and now OsmAnd insists on taking his, because it comes

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

To John: Those are all very good points. This one is particularly interesting: >An example of this issue is where a road with no sidewalks meets another road with sidewalks, but does not cross it (and is not in an urban environ, so there is no real paint to show a crossing=zebra) . Do you add a

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

My strategy in this kind of case is to add those driveways and virtual crossings that are useful for routing purposes. So if there is a junction, if there is a driveway opposite it, I will add that driveway (or maybe just the part of the driveway upto the sidewalk), if there is none, but people

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:56 PM, John Willis wrote: > > On Jul 14, 2017, at 11:32 PM, Nick Bolten wrote: > >> --> need to add all driveways? > > This is generally a good idea - and to make sure they share a node. > > Why ? What is the benefit of adding