Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Le 18.12.22 à 21:29, Brian M. Sperlongano a écrit : I would like to understand how folks in various places would interpret this: highway= foot=no sidewalk=separate I interpret it exactly as you describe it in the text: there is a carrierway not allowed to pedestrians there is another object

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gender

If we have inconsistent tagging of unisex=yes and it is unclear which is its meaning then passing proposal does not really solve it unisex=yes data will still have the same problem in case of such damaged tag[1] it would be better to introduce a new one (though if vast majority is using this

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

That is an irritating case. 1) with you assumptions it is possible to argue that it refers to case where there is a separately mapped sidewalk that nevertheless is inaccessible (some technical/escape route in a tunnel or on motorway?) 2) in practise it is far more likely to be used in case where

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

18 gru 2022, 23:27 od graemefi...@gmail.com: > It would be much nicer to drop the sidewalk=separate from the road, & draw a > separate footway, which would fix everything! > note that sidewalk=separate is used to indicate that separately mapped sidewalk(s) is/are mapped. Not sure why you

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Vào lúc 17:29 2022-12-18, Zeke Farwell đã viết: On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 6:33 PM Minh Nguyen > wrote: Vào lúc 15:00 2022-12-18, Zeke Farwell đã viết: > I'll try to answer the original question as succinctly as possible.  As > I understand

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 6:33 PM Minh Nguyen wrote: > Vào lúc 15:00 2022-12-18, Zeke Farwell đã viết: > > I'll try to answer the original question as succinctly as possible. As > > I understand it, the combination foot=no + sidewalk=separate means > > walking is not allowed at all on this street

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 at 09:33, Minh Nguyen wrote: > other places where cyclists are required to use sidewalks when present. & then you have places like where I am, where e-scooters are allowed to use marked bike lanes, riding at speeds up to 25kph (15mph?) on streets with a speed limit up to

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 159, Issue 32

egy and related tools" > > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Re: Foot / sidewalk access tagging > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipe

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

The way cited here is a highway=footway, and my dataset only includes the roadways themselves, not footway/cycleway, etc, by design and intent. In that case, there is an adjacent highway=trunk road (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/68648993) which is tagged foot=no, with no sidewalk

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Vào lúc 15:00 2022-12-18, Zeke Farwell đã viết: I'll try to answer the original question as succinctly as possible.  As I understand it, the combination foot=no + sidewalk=separate means walking is not allowed at all on this street and the sidewalk belonging to this street is mapped as a

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Hello, On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 6:08 PM Jens Glad Balchen wrote: > > There are instances that you wouldn't want to include in your router. > E.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/658000911, which is similar > except there is no sidewalk=separate. Walking on this "sidewalk" is > probably

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

On Dec 18, 2022, at 3:06 PM, Jens Glad Balchen wrote: > I don't know how you would tell the difference, apart from the lack of > sidewalk=separate on the carriageway. Right, this can be problematic, both for pedestrians (who might not know "the law" or "what pedestrian access am I actually

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

It would be much nicer to drop the sidewalk=separate from the road, & draw a separate footway, which would fix everything! There are separately drawn footways in his Texan cases, just as you could hopefully expect from sidewalk=separate.

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

On 18.12.2022 23:11, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: Currently taking bets on how long it will take before someone actually answers the question I posed  Seems to me, in the situation described, and with the tagging instances in Texas I could find, the tagging is accurate, in that it shows:

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

I'll try to answer the original question as succinctly as possible. As I understand it, the combination foot=no + sidewalk=separate means walking is not allowed at all on this street and the sidewalk belonging to this street is mapped as a separate way. Since the sidewalk belongs to the street,

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 at 06:32, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > I recently came across an unexpected tagging combination and I would like > to understand how folks in various places would interpret this: > > highway= > foot=no > sidewalk=separate > > Would folks regard that as accurate data

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

OSM is anarchy, a process, sometimes (mostly, I think) successful, though often messy. It's not ringing up customer service and getting a Tier 3 professional answer, I'm sure you know that. I don't need to say this, either, but "Patience!" OSM is incremental. (Sometimes, by millimeters or

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Currently taking bets on how long it will take before someone actually answers the question I posed  On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 5:03 PM stevea wrote: > My understanding (in Texas, and other states) in this case (where there is > no sidewalk and it is not legal to walk "in the roadway") is that in

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

My understanding (in Texas, and other states) in this case (where there is no sidewalk and it is not legal to walk "in the roadway") is that in cases like these, there will always be an "easement" along at least one side of the road, where utilities (wired poles, perhaps underground piping...)

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

What I've been told (and someone showed me the law to back it up) is that apparently in Texas, IF there is a sidewalk, you are not allowed to walk in the roadway. On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 4:42 PM Ivo Reano wrote: > Are you saying that in Texas you can't walk on a street that doesn't have > a

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Are you saying that in Texas you can't walk on a street that doesn't have a sidewalk? Only in a city environment or also in a non-city environment? Or in Texas if you're on foot you're going nowhere? Definitely not human! Il giorno dom 18 dic 2022 alle ore 22:31 Brian M. Sperlongano <

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

On 18.12.2022 21:38, cyton_...@web.de wrote: And only if the highway is a streets centerline, not a cycleway or other. Why differentiate? Jens___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Hi, The tagging that I cited was from Texas in the USA. In that location, it is illegal to walk in the roadway (where the cars go), but there was a separate sidewalk where pedestrians are supposed to walk. However, my software works globally so I'm trying to understand how that

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

I don't know in your area if all pedestrians who use the streets just because they don't have a car are punished. In Italy, only motorways and some major traffic routes are formally "forbidden" to pedestrian transit. If I found a foot=yes on a street, simply to indicate that one should not walk in

Re: [Tagging] Re: Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Yes, only if the local legislation infers that pedestrians have to use a (usually car) road-accompanying sidewalk.Also, your project reminds me of wandrer.earth, where craig also introduced a way for running to track ran ways, not only for cyclists. Though i only use it for cycling.--Diese

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Thanks Cyton. Just to be clear, I'm only talking about automobile roads - highway=trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified/residential. On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 3:41 PM wrote: > If and only if there is a separately mapped sidewalk. > Sidewalk=separate means there needs to be such a way. >

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

If and only if there is a separately mapped sidewalk.Sidewalk=separate means there needs to be such a way.However i would tag foot=use_sidepath, which means the same as foot=no but also indicates the existence of a separate way usable for routing.And only if the highway is a streets

[Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Hello, I am the author of a data consumer which generates a list of streets that are accessible to walkers and joggers. The idea is that a user would have a map of the streets in their town and can challenge themselves to walk/jog down every street, and they can look at statistics on which

Re: [Tagging] uphill vs. incline=up - direction of travel

Am 18.12.22 um 20:19 schrieb Patrick Strasser-Mikhail: **'uphill'** was proposed. Forgot: This is already in use by mtb:scale:uphill[6] specifically and could be adopted. [6]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale#mtb:scale:uphill=0-5 Patrick -- engineers motto: cheap, fast,

[Tagging] uphill vs. incline=up - direction of travel

Hello! I have need for tagging that a restriction on a road is only valid in case a vehicle is driving uphill. The traffic sign states "Snow chains required when ice or snow on road, except for AWD cars driving uphill"[1]. This is indicated on both sides of the road section, both driving

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

Based on the feedback I have received I made some changes to theproposal: 1) I added a smallchange in the proposal template to add notes as reminder that useradds the links of discussion on the forum and ML to the proposal. 2) I removed thewords “new forum” and replaced it with community