Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:24 AM marc marc wrote: > Le 18. 07. 17 à 16:01, Nick Bolten a écrit : > >> All crossing between a sidewalk and a driveways I have tag have the same > >> type of kerb on each side. It's why I use kerb=lowered without any need > >> for

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

Le 18. 07. 17 à 14:29, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : >> You can try to make a proposal that mean : those 2 way (street/sidewalk) >> are only one for the routing. >> maybe a relation like associatedstreet or that extend it. > type=area does this somehow, as it defines (as default) that you can

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

Le 18. 07. 17 à 16:01, Nick Bolten a écrit : >> All crossing between a sidewalk and a driveways I have tag have the same >> type of kerb on each side. It's why I use kerb=lowered without any need >> for left/right details, it is for the whole crossing. > I think I'm confused again

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 1:55 PM marc marc wrote: > All crossing between a sidewalk and a driveways I have tag have the same > type of kerb on each side. It's why I use kerb=lowered without any need > for left/right details, it is for the whole crossing. > I think I'm

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

sent from a phone > On 16. Jul 2017, at 20:18, marc marc wrote: > > You can try to make a proposal that mean : those 2 way (street/sidewalk) > are only one for the routing. > maybe a relation like associatedstreet or that extend it. type=area does this somehow,

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

Interesting! Since the data is on a node on the street way, how do we figure out if it's left/right side? kerb:left/right=*? Or do we figure it out spatially (find the driveway way and do some math)? On Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 1:14 PM marc marc wrote: > Le 16. 07. 17 à

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

Le 16. 07. 17 à 20:38, Nick Bolten a écrit : >> There is no need to use so many section. A crossing is a node, not a >> section/way. So put one kerb=raised on the way and kerb=lowered on the >> node. It's done :-) You have the same number of section/tag in both cases. > Hmm, I'm not sure I

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

> There is no need to use so many section. A crossing is a node, not a section/way. So put one kerb=raised on the way and kerb=lowered on the node. It's done :-) You have the same number of section/tag in both cases. Hmm, I'm not sure I understand. Which node would get kerb=lowered? Since I'm

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

> You can tag the curbs at each side of a crossing using left/right tags, and you can find out the length by looking at the road's width (or estimate it from the number of lanes). It's not perfect, but at least there are good enough ways to deal with this But you can't handle the directional

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

Le 16. 07. 17 à 14:24, Svavar Kjarrval a écrit : > I do think that the routers should > be programmed to evaluate when it's safe to suggest to the user to cross > the street without a specifically mapped crossing. it is already the case use sidewalk tag on the way when you can cross the street use

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

Le 16. 07. 17 à 01:29, Nick Bolten a écrit : > a block with 10 driveways would > actually need to be split into 10 lowered/flush curb sections and 11 > raised sections, for a minimum of 21 segments for a single block. There is no need to use so many section. A crossing is a node, not a

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

On lau 15.júl 2017 11:13, marc marc wrote: > > Your demonstration is only that a wrong map create sometimes a wrong > routing :-) > What will your reaction be when Mapzen tell you to cross a road where it > is impossible ? However this is exactly the current map for [2] > You would not agree

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

On 15.07.2017 19:06, Nick Bolten wrote: [...] > It can't properly describe > crossings, since they've been condensed into a node, but important > information like length, the curbs at each side (direction of > traversal + curb type both matter), APS directionality, etc, are all > essentially

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] 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

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

> 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. To me, if you are considering adding sidewalks, you’ve already committed to adding the service roads/tracks/etc.

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

Le 14. 07. 17 à 15:41, Mike N a écrit : > when there is a small grass separation from the > roadway, they are drawn separately. For those cases, it is usually > allowed to cross the grassy separation and the road to get to the > opposite sidewalk. you can add a access tag like foot=permissive

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

If those two footways make up a reasonable continuing path, that's a good case for using the unmarked crossing tagging schema. It communicates all of the features actually being traversed (footway -> crossing the street -> footway) and is extensible: you can easily add curb and surface

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

sent from a phone > On 14. Jul 2017, at 13:16, Marc Gemis wrote: > > But what if there are no crossings marked? Do we have to invent > crossings then ? (e.g. near each junction) > It is not uncommon to have such a network of sidewalks without > "zebra"-crossings. >

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

> --> need to add all driveways? This is generally a good idea - and to make sure they share a node. > --> need to draw virtual crossings at junctions? These aren't totally artificial/virtual. You can consider them 'unmarked crossings' and there's already tags on the wiki: highway=footway,

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

Another typical case - no explicitly marked crossings - sidewalk parallel to road - kerb separating sidewalk from road - hedge, interrupted for each driveway and at the junctions, placed on sidewalk, parallel with road. --> need to add all driveways ? --> need to draw virtual crossings at

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

On 7/14/2017 8:14 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: but merge sidewalk with the road where the is no space/barier between them. and that's were the discussion starts. When I asked when one has to draw a separate sidewalk a few weeks ago on this mailing list someone answered: as soon as there is a kerb.

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

> but merge sidewalk with the road where the is no space/barier between them. and that's were the discussion starts. When I asked when one has to draw a separate sidewalk a few weeks ago on this mailing list someone answered: as soon as there is a kerb. m.

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

>>> A street with a sidewalk on either side but no marked crossings: >> These are (IMHO) mapping errors. You can't draw isolated footway islands and >> expect a router to magically understand those are sidewalks which you can >> cross without a connection. > It is not uncommon to have such a

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 1:08 PM, marc marc wrote: >> the "common sense approach" would expect. > routing doesn't know "common sense approach" :) > if 2 sidewalk or roads are taged as "separated without any link", > routing can't guess that a connection exists. >

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

On fös 14.júl 2017 10:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > 2017-07-14 12:20 GMT+02:00 Svavar Kjarrval >: > > > A street segment with no sidewalks on either side: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/64.12876/-21.90466 >

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > 2017-07-14 12:20 GMT+02:00 Svavar Kjarrval : >> >> >> A street with a sidewalk on either side but no marked crossings: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/64.08800/-21.89846 >>

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

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 suggests a long route while Mapzen assumes the user is >

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

2017-07-14 12:20 GMT+02:00 Svavar Kjarrval : > > A street segment with no sidewalks on either side: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/64.12876/-21.90466 > > This is an urban example, but probably you don't have sidewalks in most of the country (rural areas), and it

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

On fim 13.júl 2017 13:49, Andy Townsend wrote: > Perhaps a few links to photos would help? > > It'd make it a lot easier for other people to visualise. Don't think I have such photos on me and I'm fairly sure some people wouldn't want links to copyrighted photos in Google Street View. I'll do the

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

Le 13. 07. 17 à 15:28, Svavar Kjarrval a écrit : > the local public transport authority started utilising OSM good :-) > 1. Sometimes streets don't have formal sidewalks (no markings on the > street nor signs) but there is an "common sense expectation" that > pedestrians are allowed to traverse

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

> On Jul 13, 2017, at 10:28 PM, Svavar Kjarrval wrote: > > when the "common sense" approach would be to "just go > across the street". This is a question I have too, and I’m wondering if this is something you solve at the tagging or engine level. Afaik, this is why the

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

sent from a phone > On 13. Jul 2017, at 15:28, Svavar Kjarrval wrote: > > 1. Sometimes streets don't have formal sidewalks (no markings on the > street nor signs) but there is an "common sense expectation" that > pedestrians are allowed to traverse on the edge of that

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

Perhaps a few links to photos would help? It'd make it a lot easier for other people to visualise. Best Regards, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging