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 on the edge of that street, and also > cross it anywhere using caution. > This can cause problems for routing software can you give an exemple ? I never see this problem. I just test GraphHopper and Mapzen on 2 streets without sidewalk without any routing problem. Regards, Marc ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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 roads have the sidewalk=left/right/both tag - so the sidewalk is considered “part of the road” and routing engines do not have to think about what side of the road you are on. Places with complicated and separate footpaths need Highway=footway, but this is the downside to that. I wonder if adding foot=yes tag to the roads without sidewalks and and foot=no to ways where it is dangerous would help. In places complicated enough to warrant separate footpaths, then assuming they *cannot* cross the street wherever they want (and forced to go to crosswalks or signals) is by far the best choice. But where this complicated sidewalk tagging ends, and the minor, residential, and service roads without sidewalks begin interests me greatly. Is there a “footway_link” ? Not a traditional _link road, but a logical link to when sidewalks end - do they need some kind of “link” to the adjacent road so Routing continues on? Currently, in some situations I link them to the adjacent road segment or across an intersection with crossing+crossing=unmarked, but I am unsure if this is necessary or proper. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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 street, and also > cross it anywhere using caution. The maximum speed is considered low > enough, but they are not technically living streets. This can cause > problems for routing software since it generally doesn't have a basis to > assume this behaviour is alright. I don't know which jurisdiction you are talking about, but walking on the edge of the street seems perfectly legal in many places (in absence of sidewalks or if you are carrying big loads that would be a nuisance to other pedestrians on a sidewalk), with the exception of motorways and motorroads. The same for crossing anywhere, provided you are farther away than x meters of a signed crossing (where x around here is 100 meters if I recall correctly, and 0-30-100 meters in other European countries) and it is not a road restricted to motor vehicles (motorway etc.) and you believe it is safe to do so. Actually the only countries I am aware of restricting pedestrians (jaywalking) from crossing anywhere (when "reasonably far" away from traffic lights and crossings) are the US, Canada and Singapore. I don't know how current routers handle this case, and it is clearly preferable walking on decent sidewalks than on the road, but in absence of sidewalks the router should still be able to lead pedestrians over a road. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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
[Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks
Hi. A few months ago the local public transport authority started utilising OSM data to offer a service where people can type in two addresses and receive an interactive map with suggested bus routes, including the path between the addresses and the suggested bus stops. The estimated walking distance, based on the path to and from the bus stops, are used in the calculation. However, there are some issues regarding tagging I have yet to resolve and would like your advice: 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 street, and also cross it anywhere using caution. The maximum speed is considered low enough, but they are not technically living streets. This can cause problems for routing software since it generally doesn't have a basis to assume this behaviour is alright. 2. Same as #1, but there can be sidewalks along the street and no crossings, including unmarked ones. People are expected to cross the street wherever they need, using caution. This can cause some long walking routes if the two addresses are directly opposite each other on such a street, when the "common sense" approach would be to "just go across the street". 3. Same type of street as #2, except the sidewalk just stops a few meters before the street ends. There are no clear markings on location but there's the unwritten expectation that they are supposed to continue on the street. This is common when there's a small cul-de-sac space at the end of a residential street in which they don't widen the street at the end to allow cars to turn around, but instead they let the sidewalks end prematurely. I do agree that we shouldn't tag purely for the router so I'm not suggesting that. What I am considering is if there are already commonly accepted OSM solutions already available to tackle these issues. Or, alternatively, tags or other methods which would aid routers in making such decisions and also conform with the OSM tagging norms at the same time. With regards, Svavar Kjarrval ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] direction value for panorama view?
Since OpenTopoMap announced [1] a customize rendering for the tourism=viewpoint [4] symbol depend on direction, we discuss [2] what would be the correct value for the 360 panorama view. The wiki [3] defined values from 0 to 359 (!). Range values aren't defined yet, but are in use, because it's common and intuitive for tourism=viewpoint. Would be 0-360 fine? Mention: 360=0=N [1] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=653006#p653006 [2] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=653279#p653279 [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:direction [4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dviewpoint___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
