Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

2017-07-14 Thread John Willis

> 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. 

Adding the hidden crossing (crossing=unmarked) IMHO is the thing to be 
discussed.  

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 crossing=unmarked 
that goes from the sidewalk to the node of the road’s T junction? People on the 
sidewalk far side of the T junction will expect to be able to cross the street 
there and continue on the road. 

In my region, even on major national roads sidewalks abruptly stop, let alone 
on tertiary roads. Usually a road is being brought up to a modern standard 
section by section, but the surrounding roads are not. A building project 
forced the adjacent roads to be upgraded, but the beginning and end of those 
roads are still the older narrow versions, such as this tertiary road here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/36.42388/137.87330

Because where the sidewalk abruptly ends is dangerous for peds, I put in an 
unmarked crossing to the other side, and linked the sidewalk to the road where 
it ends to the east. 

I am committed to mapping all sidewalks as separate ways, because they often 
have routing completely separate from roads in Japan, and the nature of them 
appearing and disappearing be mapped with a separate way is the best way to 
show this - but how peds “rejoin” the road when it does end is what is not 
documented in OSM.


Javbw ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] highspeed=yes

2017-07-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 14. Jul 2017, at 19:01, Michael Reichert  wrote:
> 
> In addition, mappers
> in rural areas have more important things to map than fences along a
> railway line in the middle of nowhere.


really? An uninterrupted fence going for many kilometers and cutting the whole 
area in 2 separated parts is not important?

i agree with what you write about lines, but would see lines as kind of more 
abstract route relation, not just railway=rail on a way. the latter should not 
get a highspeed=yes tag if it is not highspeed.

Cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] highspeed=yes

2017-07-14 Thread Michael Reichert
Hi,

sorry for the late response on the mailing list, I accidentially send
the email only to Richard.

Am 11.07.2017 um 10:49 schrieb Richard:
> without a proper definition there is no way to resolve your dispute
> and the tag is unverifyable and of limitted use as is.

There are two open questions regarding the definition:
- What qualifies a track to have highspeed=yes? Minimum speed, curves,
type of traffic, fencing, train protection etc. are the relevant
factors. But it has not been decided yet which of them are relevant and
which are more important.
- 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?

I would like to keep the discussion to the second question.

Fliefy uses highspeed=yes for tracks with at least 200 kph. I agree with
that. But other mappers disagreed when we discussed that in real life
the last time. That was three years ago.

There is a plenty of examples of potential highspeed=yes on not-so-fast
tracks:
- The stations Fulda, Kassel-Wilhelmshöhe and Göttingen (all along high
speed line Würzburg–Hannover). Speed limit is about 100 to 140 kph for
trains passing these stations intentionally.
- The tracks at most junctions of the old and new railway line from
Karlsruhe to Basel are part of the new high speed line. Where the two
lines separate, the speed limit is 100 kph because these junctions are
of temporary nature and they did not want to spend much money for
expensive high speed points. Once the whole line is finished (in about
10 to 20 years), they will be removed. Btw, the speed limit on the old
line is 160 kph and 250 kph on the new line.
- The high speed line Leipzig–Nuremberg runs through Erfurt Central
Station on its own tracks but with a speed limit much below 160 kph
(outside the station and its surrounding 300 kph).
- The Northeast Corridor between Washington and Boston has sections
where the train is "slow" (changeset discussion I linked in my initial
posting).

Should all those junctions and stations and the other parts of the line
get highspeed=yes although they are not suitable for high speeds? If
yes, this would open a new discussion where the line should begin and
end. Its a decision which is difficult or impossible to research *on*
*the ground*. I would like to avoid that.

> Presumably when exact speed limits will be mapped in the ideal case
> what is the use of this tag? 

Different countries define "high speed" different. In most countries
high speed traffic needs a more sophisticated train protection system.
The maximum speed of the less sophisticated train protection is often
but not always the border between "high speed" and "not high speed"
because the railway operators introduced the better train protection
system when they build their first high speed lines.
Countries with a large high speed network might set the limit higher
while countries with a smaller (or slower) one might set the limit
lower. The first one might be France, the second UK. Swiss railway staff
would experience 200 kph as fast (Olten—Bern, New Gotthard Tunnel). Do
we have fix definitions of highway=* all over Europe? No, we don't. Just
compare highway=trunk in UK with German highway=trunk.

Map style authors are happy to render high speed network maps without
checking the location and the local definition of each line to be
rendered. The tag highspeed=yes is intended to be the extension of
usage=main/branch upwards. An early version of OpenRailwayMap tagging
scheme in 2011 suggested to use usage=highspeed but others argumented
that a high speed line is usually a main line.

The more vague a definition is, the more happy data consumers are if OSM
contributors do the classification.

> Just to say that it is called "Hochgeschwindigkeitsstrekce" in German, 
> or is there something more implied like special traffic rules, special 
> signaling, freight train exclusion?
> Perhaps all this properties should be tagged in separately?

Most of these properties are all tagged separately:

- Train protection using railway:=yes/no [yes, this scheme
is not a well designed tagging scheme]
- Speed limit using maxspeed=* and maxspeed:*=*
- Usage is difficult to tag and derive from OSM. There is
railway:traffic_mode=freight/passenger/mixed but one regular freight
train is enough to use "mixed". Types of passenger trains (local vs.
InterCity vs. high speed) are mapped as route relations but then you
have to parse and understand ref=* because service=* is not mapped on
all route relations. Germany has a handful of real high speed lines (>=
250 kph) which are used by local trains, too.
- Fences are mapped as you would map them.  It is difficult and not
effient to determine if a railway line is fenced. In addition, mappers
in rural areas have more important things to map than fences along a
railway line in the middle of nowhere. Btw, older high 

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

2017-07-14 Thread marc marc
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 on the grass area but 
routing right now seems to not support pedestrian area.
you should look for the state of the proposals on this subject.

Regards,
Marc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Combined use of addr:place and addr:street

2017-07-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2017-07-14 14:59 GMT+02:00 Tobias Wrede :

> it's by definition we refuse to have both tags, as addr:place is defined
> for places without streetnames
>
>
> Well that's the question here, isn't it? Is it by definition or not?
>



that's what the wiki says: "Use addr:place instead of addr:street
=* for such buildings,
whose number belong not to a street, but to some other object." and in more
words: "Sometimes, addresses don't contain the name of any street. Some
addresses are made with the scheme ", ". It can be the name of a village, islands, territorial zone or any
other object (sometimes, there is no existing object with that name). If we
use this tag instead of addr:street
=*) for such
addresses, it will be better for understanding and for software."


Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

2017-07-14 Thread Nick Bolten
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 information.

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 7:35 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>
> People are allowed to cross everywhere then.
>
>
>
> I wouldn't map the sidewalks as proper footways in this case, but you
> could also "connect" them with a relation, e.g. type=area. The footways
> inside the block should connect with the road, e.g. here
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=64.08781=-21.89969#map=19/64.08781/-21.89969w
>
> cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

2017-07-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


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.
> People are allowed to cross everywhere then.


I wouldn't map the sidewalks as proper footways in this case, but you could 
also "connect" them with a relation, e.g. type=area. The footways inside the 
block should connect with the road, e.g. here 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=64.08781=-21.89969#map=19/64.08781/-21.89969w

cheers,
Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

2017-07-14 Thread Nick Bolten
> --> 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,
footway=crossing, crossing=unmarked.

Most, but not all, 'weird' routes can be avoided by adding unmarked
crossings. One exception is routing between two POIs on opposite sides of
the street, but:
  - This is not a primary use case for end user routing. If foot traffic
can reasonably be expected to cross anywhere and it's just across the
street, the end user can figure out their actual path easily. Users that
aren't comfortable figuring out that path should most likely not be
crossing at arbitrary locations, and would prefer crossing at junctions
(and preferably marked crossings).
  - Routers can always fall back to using streets / ignoring footways for
short distances. Routers that bake costs into their graph will need to
create an extra graph, but that's an inherent limitation for extending that
approach.

> Throwing out the R word here - what about a relation that defines
> which disconnected ways could be walked to or across from any point on a
> current way?   That would also include the road since there would be no
> barrier.

This is potentially tricky and should probably go in its own thread
eventually (OpenSidewalks people and I have been meaning to do a good
overview and RFC related to it). Example:

- The left side of the street has 1 sidewalk line (sidewalk A)
- The right side of the street has 2 sidewalk lines (sidewalks B, C), split
right in the middle of the block

Drawing:


---
BCC

I think this would imply needing 2 relations. And if the relation only
contains the info 'sidewalk A', 'sidewalk B', 'street', the simple
interpretation implies that one can always get from sidewalk A to sidewalk
B via the street. However, not all crossings from A to B are orthogonal:
the diagonal crossings may be impractical. So routers will need to
incorporate spatial logic as well, essentially just adding unmarked
crossings at various points. Totally doable, but not super simple, either,
and that strategy doesn't actually require the relation.e

A natural reaction is to revert to treating sidewalks as metadata of
streets, but this is no good for accessible routing, and is also not a good
description of the pedestrian transportation network. But for the most
part, I have yet to see an example of a really bad route when unmarked
crossings are added at appropriate locations.

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 6:50 AM Marc Gemis  wrote:

> 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 junctions ?
>
> m
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Mike N  wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >   Similarly, I have been combining sidewalks with roads where there is no
> > separation.   But 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.
> >
> >   Throwing out the R word here - what about a relation that defines which
> > disconnected ways could be walked to or across from any point on a
> current
> > way?   That would also include the road since there would be no barrier.
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

2017-07-14 Thread Marc Gemis
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 junctions ?

m


On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Mike N  wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>   Similarly, I have been combining sidewalks with roads where there is no
> separation.   But 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.
>
>   Throwing out the R word here - what about a relation that defines which
> disconnected ways could be walked to or across from any point on a current
> way?   That would also include the road since there would be no barrier.
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

2017-07-14 Thread Mike N

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.


  Similarly, I have been combining sidewalks with roads where there is 
no separation.   But 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.


  Throwing out the R word here - what about a relation that defines 
which disconnected ways could be walked to or across from any point on a 
current way?   That would also include the road since there would be no 
barrier.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Combined use of addr:place and addr:street

2017-07-14 Thread Tobias Wrede

Am 14.07.2017 um 14:32 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:


2017-07-14 10:16 GMT+02:00 Tobias Wrede >:



Have a look at this place "Siesel":
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.22209/7.90369
. The
hamlet is called Siesel and officially all the streets there do
not have a name (you can check on the "NRW-Atlas: ALKIS" layer 
that all streets are just designated "Weg" i. e. "Street"). From

an official address point of view all houses there should have
addr:place=Siesel and addr:housenumber=nn.



is "nn" meant to be literally the string "nn"? (btw: NN in German 
usage is a placeholder referring to people). In Italy, quite 
frequently in the countryside, there is the abbreviation "snc" to say 
"no housenumber", but I wouldn't add this in addr:housenumber as it's 
not a housenumber (you can find it in official lists in the 
housenumber field though).


Na. "nn" is meant to be a placeholder for the actual number: 12, 13, 14 
etc.


On the ground, tough, they have put up the usual German street
name signs all showing "Siesel". So from an on the ground point of
view all houses there should have addr:street=Siesel and
addr:housenumber=nn. What to do now?




 it's by definition we refuse to have both tags, as addr:place is 
defined for places without streetnames



Well that's the question here, isn't it? Is it by definition or not?

Tobi
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Combined use of addr:place and addr:street

2017-07-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


2017-07-14 10:16 GMT+02:00 Tobias Wrede :
> 
> Have a look at this place "Siesel": 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.22209/7.90369. The hamlet is called 
> Siesel and officially all the streets there do not have a name (you can check 
> on the "NRW-Atlas: ALKIS" layer  that all streets are just designated "Weg" 
> i. e. "Street"). From an official address point of view all houses there 
> should have addr:place=Siesel and addr:housenumber=nn.


is "nn" meant to be literally the string "nn"? (btw: NN in German usage is a 
placeholder referring to people). In Italy, quite frequently in the 
countryside, there is the abbreviation "snc" to say "no housenumber", but I 
wouldn't add this in addr:housenumber as it's not a housenumber (you can find 
it in official lists in the housenumber field though).

 
> On the ground, tough, they have put up the usual German street name signs all 
> showing "Siesel". So from an on the ground point of view all houses there 
> should have addr:street=Siesel and addr:housenumber=nn. What to do now?


IMHO the street name signs could result in highway names in OSM (highway=*, 
name=Siesel) as one alternative, or not (if you interpret them as the place 
name and not as a street name, because as a German native, I'd not expect 
"Siesel" to represent a streetname but rather a placename). In both cases, I 
wouldn't add addr:street tags with the "Siesel" as value, because it isn't the 
street name address.


 it's by definition we refuse to have both tags, as addr:place is defined for 
places without streetnames

cheers,
Martin 
 
> 
> I agree this is borderline but I don't see why we should categorically refuse 
> to have both tags.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

2017-07-14 Thread Marc Gemis
> 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.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

2017-07-14 Thread marc marc
>>> 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 network of sidewalks without
> "zebra"-crossings.
> People are allowed to cross everywhere then.
if you can cross everywhere, sidewalks are not separated but are part of 
the road (like a lane)
I tag : highway=residential + sidewalk=both without any separated 
sidewalk path
I think that your sidewalk must be review :
keep isolated sidewalk as there are right now.
but merge sidewalk with the road where the is no space/barier between them.

 > There isn't even always a lowered kerb for people in wheelchairs. If
 > the are lucky, they can use the connection of a driveway with the
 > street, as those usually have a lowered kerb.
For wheelchairs routing, I put kerb=raised on the highway and a 
highway=crossing crossing=unmarked kerb=lowered where wheelchairs can cross.

Regards,
Marc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

2017-07-14 Thread Marc Gemis
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.
>


Somewhere on the wiki there is a page that explains theoretically how
routing in such a case can be done.
Of course, I can't find it right now

regards

m.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

2017-07-14 Thread Svavar Kjarrval


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
> 
>
>
>
> This is an urban example, but probably you don't have sidewalks in
> most of the country (rural areas), and it likely isn't a problem for
> routing engines.
>
Don't know how the comment about it being an urban example contributes
to this discussion, as this is a real life case needing a solution. More
than half the population of the country lives in the capital area, from
which all the examples are located. Therefore, that area has received
the most focus of the local OSM community.
>
>  
>
> 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
> already on the other side of the street)
>
>
>
>
> 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. E.g this:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/102907998
> There aren't even footway subtags like footway=sidewalk, but even if
> there were I wouldn't expect working routing from this graph.
The example was provided as a mean to visualise, not an example of a
routing error (per my comment regarding it).
>
>
>  
>
> A street segment where the paved sidewalk ends prematurely (same as I
> described, except they do widen the street in that case):
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=64.11777=-21.84680#map=19/64.11777/-21.84680
> 
> 
>
>
>
> no immediate problem for routing, as they are connected
Same as above, provided for visualisation.
>
>  
>
> (Sidenote: I do wonder if it would be alright to put a sidewalk
> talk on
> the road segment at the end of that street)
>
>
>
> the properties will always refer to the whole object, so if a part of
> the road has a sidewalk, another part has not, you have to split the
> road and add different tags.
>
> I wonder how all those tags have come into OSM, and what their meaning
> is? Has this pile of cryptic, undocumented abbreviations really made
> it through the import process?
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/92639788
The import process was organised by the local community. The references
are mostly in Icelandic words or abbreviations thereof. I'm not saying
it was perfect, and in retrospect, I think it would've probably been
better if they had been translated to English before the import.
>
>
>
> Routers seem to
>
> have a hard time knowing when it's alright to suggest the user "jump"
> onto the sidewalk from the road or vice versa if there isn't a footway
> such as ones used for crossings. 
>
>
>
>
> you should assume that routers never "jump" from one way to the other
> without an explicit connection.
Indeed I do, and I do understand (some of) the reasoning for it. Part of
the issue is the lack of data for the router to realise that there is a
connection or make it understand that it such a "jump" would be ordinary
in certain circumstances.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
With regards,
Svavar Kjarrval


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

2017-07-14 Thread Marc Gemis
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
>> (Sidenote: If one tries to route from no. 73 to 42,
>> GraphHopper suggests a long route while Mapzen assumes the user is
>> already on the other side of the street)
>>
>
>
>
> 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. E.g this:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/102907998
> There aren't even footway subtags like footway=sidewalk, but even if there
> were I wouldn't expect working routing from this graph.
>

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.
People are allowed to cross everywhere then.

There isn't even always a lowered kerb for people in wheelchairs. If
the are lucky, they can use the connection of a driveway with the
street, as those usually have a lowered kerb.

m.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

2017-07-14 Thread marc marc
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
> already on the other side of the street)
It is a fault (and in my opinion a mistake) to tag a sidewalk separated 
from the road where it is not!
there is only one point that the maper create to connect the sidewalk 
and the road https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2673312760
of course routing can only use this point, luckily !

A sidewalk really isolated from the road (= by a barrier) does not allow 
crossing outside a crossing. This is the current situation of your example.
This is not specific to the sidewalk, the same happens with roads:
If you cut a road with 2 lanes into 2 road without any link between 
them, routing will not allow you to jump from one lane to the other.

> 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 to switch to the street by foot.
If needed, cut the road : one segment with sidewalk=left/righ, second 
segment with sidewalk=no

> I haven't been able to find any tag or method to do it
a road with not-separed sidewalk should be taged as such :-)

> 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.

Regards,
Marc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

2017-07-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
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 likely isn't a problem for routing
engines.




> 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
> already on the other side of the street)
>
>


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. E.g this:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/102907998
There aren't even footway subtags like footway=sidewalk, but even if there
were I wouldn't expect working routing from this graph.




> A street segment where the paved sidewalk ends prematurely (same as I
> described, except they do widen the street in that case):
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=64.11777=-21.84680#
> map=19/64.11777/-21.84680
>


no immediate problem for routing, as they are connected



> (Sidenote: I do wonder if it would be alright to put a sidewalk talk on
> the road segment at the end of that street)
>


the properties will always refer to the whole object, so if a part of the
road has a sidewalk, another part has not, you have to split the road and
add different tags.

I wonder how all those tags have come into OSM, and what their meaning is?
Has this pile of cryptic, undocumented abbreviations really made it through
the import process?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/92639788



Routers seem to

> have a hard time knowing when it's alright to suggest the user "jump"
> onto the sidewalk from the road or vice versa if there isn't a footway
> such as ones used for crossings.




you should assume that routers never "jump" from one way to the other
without an explicit connection.


Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

2017-07-14 Thread Svavar Kjarrval
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 next-best thing and provide links to OSM locations. If people check
them out on Google Street View or via other such sources, it would be
their business. The areas are mainly picked for visualisation, not
because I've found any specific routing issues.

A street segment with no sidewalks on either side:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/64.12876/-21.90466

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
already on the other side of the street)

A street segment where the paved sidewalk ends prematurely (same as I
described, except they do widen the street in that case):
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=64.11777=-21.84680#map=19/64.11777/-21.84680
(Sidenote: I do wonder if it would be alright to put a sidewalk talk on
the road segment at the end of that street)

On fim 13.júl 2017 14:08, John Willis wrote:
> 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?
That's one of the issues I've been wondering myself. Routers seem to
have a hard time knowing when it's alright to suggest the user "jump"
onto the sidewalk from the road or vice versa if there isn't a footway
such as ones used for crossings. In cases where the footway ends
prematurely, the routing software doesn't know it may suggest such a
"jump" onto the street or not, and would be likely to give up on that
segment. I do understand there are probably justified reasons for them
not to do it without positive data allowing them to, so we might need to
input some type of data (like a link) telling the routing software that
such a connection is fine in that case. Sadly, I'm not sure what method
I'd be allowed to use since I haven't been able to find any tag or
method to do it.

On fim 13.júl 2017 14:17, marc marc wrote:
> 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.
This is, of course, not a problem when finding routes between two houses
on the opposite side of the street. There are problems where the routers
discover a footway nearby but that footway leads to a much longer route
when in fact it would be much quicker to walk on the street itself, as
the "common sense approach" would expect.
Here is an example of that:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=64.14793%2C-21.96048%3B64.14875%2C-21.96216#map=18/64.14809/-21.96170
(Sidenote: If one moves the points much closer to the street of
Aflagrandi, the routers will finally "get it", but these are not the
coordinates people would utilise when looking up the starting point and
the destination point.)

With regards,
Svavar Kjarrval


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Combined use of addr:place and addr:street

2017-07-14 Thread Tobias Wrede

For what it's worth answering a bit late. I am not sure I completely agree.

2017-06-23 10:18 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer >:





   I agree with you, either use
   addr:place

   or use
   addr:street

   As the reason for using addr:place is that there isn't a street to
   which the address refers, I also don't see which street should go
   into addr:street, it makes no sense.


Have a look at this place "Siesel": 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.22209/7.90369. The hamlet is 
called Siesel and officially all the streets there do not have a name 
(you can check on the "NRW-Atlas: ALKIS" layer  that all streets are 
just designated "Weg" i. e. "Street"). From an official address point of 
view all houses there should have addr:place=Siesel and 
addr:housenumber=nn. On the ground, tough, they have put up the usual 
German street name signs all showing "Siesel". So from an on the ground 
point of view all houses there should have addr:street=Siesel and 
addr:housenumber=nn. What to do now? I would say that in this case we 
could perfectly well have both addr:place and addr:street.


I agree this is borderline but I don't see why we should categorically 
refuse to have both tags.


Note that I just searched my mind for a case where this could happen. 
The actual tagging here is just using the addr:street.


Tobi
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging