Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

[Nick Bolten]

> 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, rather than an
alternative to, highway=footway, footway=sidewalk.

> well... every way is a spatial inaccuracy because we use a way in stead of
an area..  (...)

For sure! There's always a sacrifice of spatial accuracy in mapping
abstractions. But there's also a point where they get stretched too far -
and in these cases, we're trying to shoehorn separated pedestrian ways and
features encountered along them into street centerlines, with all the
downsides and awkwardness I mentioned.

> Or not, the street and the sidewalk do not change often here (> 10
years), the sidewalk is often the same type/surface/kerb ... for the whole
street.

Sure, but more data gets added as people map more features. And I
underestimated the number of segments: 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. This is ignoring
curb ramps (each adds 2 more), and other features meant to split road ways,
like turn lanes, lane numbers, parking lanes, etc. And then someone comes
along and wants to say, 'the surface of the sidewalk from here to here is
asphalt' and sees a bajillion segments. This is with the additional loss of
specificity and visibility of the features, and the only gain is that a
pedestrian network is shoehorned into a street network.

> Before advising people to describe as separate path when this is not the 
> casethe
routing must first understand that our 2 way are a sidewalk connected to a
street.If not, you break the routing and the only advantage seems to move
sidewalk 3m away.

Not sure if I understand what you mean, I'm not sure how this breaks
routing.

> Read me again, I did not say you can walk on the road if a sidewalk
exist. I stated the rule used to know when a road must be single or
splited. (...)

I think there might be a misunderstanding, because I didn't say otherwise...

> By keeping this rule for sidewalks, we avoid a lot of routing problem.

But I'm pointing out that by that same rule, sidewalks should usually be
separated. Your rule of thumb was this: "Guidelines for roads is very easy:
split a road in 2 when you can NOT switch from one to the other (for
example a road with a island)."

The trouble is that unlike roads, where vehicular access falls into very
few category restrictions, pedestrians have a huge diversity of
restrictions. So for many (10-20% of the population), you "can NOT switch"
from the sidewalk to the street due to things like curbs or bollards or
safety concerns.

And finally, for routing to actually handle street crossings as nodes and
things like driveways, they need to essentially recreate the topology of
separated sidewalks anyways (and none do this). These features are actually
mostly ignored for pedestrian routers and used instead for routing
motorized vehicles.

But we're getting a bit off-topic. In terms of the original question, I
think using highway=forward, footway=crossway is the least-bad option for
making sure separate sidewalk ways are well-connected to the street grid,
including when sidewalks terminate.

Best,

Nick

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 1:53 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> 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
> people (e.g. kids) through places with fewer driveway crossings. Plus you
> see for the gates whether cars can pass.
>
> Admittedly, it really depends on the situation whether I'd map all of them
> or refrain for the moment because it seems too tedious and too little to
> gain.
>
> 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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 people (e.g. 
kids) through places with fewer driveway crossings. Plus you see for the gates 
whether cars can pass.

Admittedly, it really depends on the situation whether I'd map all of them or 
refrain for the moment because it seems too tedious and too little to gain.

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

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

[marc marc]

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 barrier, when all crossing 
are lowered, enough width , good surface, no incline
In case of doubt, I do not put this tag.

>>> easier to add characteristics for wheelchair routing to them.
>> you can add those tag to the street as documented here
>  > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wheelchair_routing#Sidewalks
>  > for example I use the following tag on the street :
>  > sidewalk=right
> Yes, but that's a fairly unnatural way to describe a pedestrian way: 
no, it isn't a pedestrian way, it is a street with sidewalk, it is not 
the same for routing.

> leads to spatial inaccuracy
well... every way is a spatial inaccuracy because we use a way in stead 
of an area.. and in real live and routing, it doesn't care, everything 
work fine except that the map doesn't show the real width.
See area:highway proposed features pending for a few years :-)

> it becomes a real maintainability nightmare.

Or not, the street and the sidewalk do not change often here (> 10 years),
the sidewalk is often the same type/surface/kerb ... for the whole street.
But if you cut the sidewalk away off the street, routing problem will 
often occur.
Before advising people to describe as separate path when this is not the 
casethe routing must first understand that our 2 way are a sidewalk 
connected to a street.If not, you break the routing and the only 
advantage seems to move sidewalk 3m away.

>  > Guidelines for roads is very easy: split a road in 2 when you can NOT
>> switch from one to the other (for example a road with a island). and
>> create connection where you can switch. But do NOT cut a road into 2 if
>> you switch everywhere from one to the other (for example a street with 2
>> lanes must be keep as one street, not 2).
>> Just do the same with the sidewalk as if the sidewalk was a lane
>> reserved for pedestrians. I never see a problem with that.
> Ah, but it's almost never valid to switch from a sidewalk 'lane' to a 
> street 'lane', 
Read me again, I did not say you can walk on the road if a sidewalk exist.
I stated the rule used to know when a road must be single or splited.
By keeping this rule for sidewalks, we avoid a lot of routing problem. 
Routing will be able to choose where to cross the street or what todo 
when sidewalk stops because tags show that the sidewalk is connected to 
the street without obstruction between them.

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

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

[Nick Bolten]

> 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 range of
accessibility preferences. Instead, we can mark potential barriers and let
them (or routing software) decide. For example, one person may consider a
rolled curb accessible (many manual wheelchair users) while another may
consider that inaccessible (certainly many powered wheelchair users). I
personally treat it as an override, such as when an implied barrier isn't
really a barrier, or when there are no obvious alternatives yet, such as
building entrances.

>> easier to add characteristics for wheelchair routing to them.
> you can add those tag to the street as documented here
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wheelchair_routing#Sidewalks
> for example I use the following tag on the street :
> kerb=raised
> sidewalk=right
> sidewalk:right:smoothness=excellent
> sidewalk:right:surface=asphalt
> sidewalk:right:tactile_paving=no
> sidewalk:right:wheelchair=yes

Yes, but that's a fairly unnatural way to describe a pedestrian way: as one
of two lanes of a street. It makes those footways invisible by default,
coded into a left/right from forward schema, leads to spatial inaccuracy
(the sidewalk is 30 meters away, there is a telephone pole blocking part of
the path...), etc. 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 linear features. Finally, it
rapidly explodes street lines with sidewalk information. If the curb is
raised, every time a driveway or alley intersects the sidewalk, the curb
changes to lowered or flush. If there are 10 driveways along a street, the
street must now be a minimum of 11 separate ways due solely to annotating
sidewalk information. Add in other features that may split the way
(smoothness, surface, barriers, street features like lanes, parking lanes,
etc) and it becomes a real maintainability nightmare.

> Guidelines for roads is very easy: split a road in 2 when you can NOT
> switch from one to the other (for example a road with a island). and
> create connection where you can switch. But do NOT cut a road into 2 if
> you switch everywhere from one to the other (for example a street with 2
> lanes must be keep as one street, not 2).
> Just do the same with the sidewalk as if the sidewalk was a lane
> reserved for pedestrians. I never see a problem with that.

Ah, but it's almost never valid to switch from a sidewalk 'lane' to a
street 'lane', or vice versa. You can cross the street, but simply walking
in the middle of it is at least unsafe, and sometimes illegal, unless it's
a pedestrian street. When pedestrian routers fall back to streets, it's
implied/hoped that you'll do the safe thing and stay out of car traffic. In
addition, most sidewalks have curbs or bollards or some other form of
barrier to some large minority of people. So, by this rule, we should
almost always draw separate pedestrian ways.

Hope this makes some sense... it feels a bit ranty.

Best,

Nick

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 6:30 AM John Willis  wrote:

>
>
> > 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 barrier to prevent pedestrians from continuing.
>
> In some cases, there are barriers to stop to stop any kind or traffic. In
> other cases, one side ends and the other continues, meaning peds would
> reasonably cross there to access the other sidewalk (providing there is no
> reasonable zebra crossing nearby, a situation the occurs in my
> suburban-rural area frequently), which would the. Require an unmarked
> crossing.
>
>  But If you are walking on the sidewalk and it abruptly ends (especially
> if it makes some affordance to transition you onto the shoulder, like a
> taper or a break in the curb to allow cyclists free passage) - then by all
> means! The road is now the way you are traveling on, not the sidewalk -
> which up until 3 meters before, could have been a curb, hedge, and fence
> separated way!
>
> Javbw.
> ___
> 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

[John Willis]

> 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 barrier to prevent pedestrians from continuing. 

In some cases, there are barriers to stop to stop any kind or traffic. In other 
cases, one side ends and the other continues, meaning peds would reasonably 
cross there to access the other sidewalk (providing there is no reasonable 
zebra crossing nearby, a situation the occurs in my suburban-rural area 
frequently), which would the. Require an unmarked crossing. 

 But If you are walking on the sidewalk and it abruptly ends (especially if it 
makes some affordance to transition you onto the shoulder, like a taper or a 
break in the curb to allow cyclists free passage) - then by all means! The road 
is now the way you are traveling on, not the sidewalk - which up until 3 meters 
before, could have been a curb, hedge, and fence separated way! 

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

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

[Andre Engels]

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 to switch to the street by foot.
>> If needed, cut the road : one segment with sidewalk=left/righ, second
>> segment with sidewalk=no
> 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? That is, to
> continue the footway but make a direct connection from the end of the
> footway directly to the street.
> I'm not objecting to such a method, I've just been hesitant to apply it
> without approval by documentation or the community.

If 'follow the footway to the end, then move onto the street and
continue walking on the street' is a logical (or even possible)
walking route, then connecting the end of the footway to the street in
my opinion is not only valid, but actually the *only* correct way of
mapping that has the footway separately.


-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

[marc marc]

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 :-)
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 that the routing would make you drive from one road 
to another because they are close and it save 1km. Therefore I do not 
understand why you would want the routing to do this when you are walking.
If the map is wrong, first fix the map, not the routing engine.

> but GraphHopper directs the user to take a complicated path
Complicated because the map is wrong in this case.
GraphHopper will not make you cross a road where a mapper tell 
(unintentionally but erroneously) it is impossible.
Is it bad? IMHO no, it is the best reply.
I think that is the problem. You would like the routing to guess errors 
and guess where we can jump from one path to the other in the absence of 
connection.
But the simplest/efficient/only solution is to fix the map.

>>> 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
> 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?
> I'm not objecting to such a method, I've just been hesitant to apply it
> without approval by documentation or the community.
Guidelines for roads is very easy: split a road in 2 when you can NOT 
switch from one to the other (for example a road with a island). and 
create connection where you can switch. But do NOT cut a road into 2 if 
you switch everywhere from one to the other (for example a street with 2 
lanes must be keep as one street, not 2).
Just do the same with the sidewalk as if the sidewalk was a lane 
reserved for pedestrians. I never see a problem with that.

> [2] A link with navigation routing:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_foot=64.08769%2C-21.90140%3B64.08802%2C-21.90113#map=19/64.08791/-21.90122

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

Re: [Tagging] highspeed=yes

[marc marc]

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 includes a "low speed" section and a "high speed" section, the 
tag on the line should depend on the average speed of the whole line.

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

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

[Svavar Kjarrval]

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 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.
The routing engine seems to have made the mistake of latching too much
onto the footway and ignoring the road as a possible point of travel.
I've noticed the behaviour in some routing engines using OSM data that
when it finds a footway close by which has a possible route to the
destination, it tends to ignore the nearby roads completely or place too
little value on them. Some routing algorithms mistakenly ignore a
seemingly expensive first link even though it might lead to a much
cheaper overall path. My previous routing example [1] seems to
demonstrate that.

I do acknowledge those limits on routing engines, although it's mostly
in the assumptions the programmers are prepared to make. 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, but GraphHopper directs the user to take a complicated path via
the footway in front of the house (totalling 1.1 km), only to end the
directions by suggesting to the user to walk on the street itself to the
front of the house with the starting pin. Mapzen seems to be prepared to
assume that there are no barriers between the starting pin and the
footway on the other side of the street, but GraphHopper does not do
that initially but is, later on, prepared to assume that there are no
barriers from the street itself and to the destination point.

Routing engines aren't perfect and it's a major balancing act when it
comes to performance and cost of operations. That's why I'm interested
in knowing if there's something we can do, data-wise, to help the
routing engines perform such tasks quickly and cheaply, with the end
result being directions which would make sense to the user. At least
while avoiding tagging purely for the sake of the router.

>
>> 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
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? That is, to
continue the footway but make a direct connection from the end of the
footway directly to the street.
I'm not objecting to such a method, I've just been hesitant to apply it
without approval by documentation or the community.
>
>> 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 :-)
Is there documentation or guides on how to apply that in different
situations and how to solve some of the gray areas?
>
>> 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.
Yep, we're not that far yet. :P
But until it does, it might not hurt to help it along by aiding it make
such decisions. While I do understand that need, I don't want to apply
and advocate measures which might damage the data quality needlessly.

[1]
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=64.14793%2C-21.96048%3B64.14875%2C-21.96216#map=18/64.14809/-21.96170
[2] A link with navigation routing:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_foot=64.08769%2C-21.90140%3B64.08802%2C-21.90113#map=19/64.08791/-21.90122

With regards,
Svavar Kjarrval


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

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

[marc marc]

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.
> Why ? What is the benefit of adding driveways of 3-5 meters long ?
For wheelchair routing.
If all crossing have a lower kerb, it is maybe enough to add 
sidewalk:both:wheelchair=yes to the street.
But if some crossing have a raised kerb, wheelchair routing can't work 
without a crossing with any existing way including service.

> I experimented with it in my neighborhood and the only thing it does
> is confuse navigation programs.
I have the opposite :-)
Maybe connect the entrance of the house with a path to driveway.
Maybe map only the beginning of the driveway where the crossing is located.

>> To me, if you are considering adding sidewalks, you’ve already committed to
>> adding the service roads/tracks/etc.
> I think adding sidewalks might benefit pedestrian routing
See the first question, create a sidewalk path separately in osm from 
the street where the sidewalk is in fact hooked to the street create 
currently more routing problem that it solve.

> easier to add characteristics for wheelchair routing to them.
you can add those tag to the street as documented here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wheelchair_routing#Sidewalks
for example I use the following tag on the street :
kerb=raised
sidewalk=right
sidewalk:right:smoothness=excellent
sidewalk:right:surface=asphalt
sidewalk:right:tactile_paving=no
sidewalk:right:wheelchair=yes

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

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

[John Willis]

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

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

[John Willis]

> 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 
residential in Suburban Japan has no sidewalks), AND I do not use OSM for 
routing, but wouldn’t a footway linking your building to your driveway solve 
this? 

When I map retail buildings and I know where the doors are, I map the entrance 
and add the mappable footway to the entrance node from the parking driveway. 

Would doing the same for your location solve a routing problem? 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

[Nick Bolten]

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 closer to my house.

In my case, it's for pedestrians: it is often a de facto ramp from the
sidewalk to the street (and vice versa), which is a practical route for
many wheelchair users. It can also imply an uneven surface as you go from
sidewalk to driveway to sidewalk, which can be a barrier to some.

It doesn't really add much in terms of routing cars, like you note.

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 12:18 AM Nick Bolten  wrote:

> 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
> 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.
>
> I don't think we really have adequate tags to describe that situation, so
> everyone makes due by either doing what you suggest (a half-crossing) or
> connecting footways/sidewalks directly to roads. Neither makes perfect
> semantic sense: it's not really a road crossing and it's also not really a
> sidewalk, it's just a change of path that a pedestrian would realistically
> need to make. It should probably use an entirely new tag for a pedestrian
> transition of some sort (not unlike a *_link for roads), but that would of
> course need to be hashed out in a separate proposal. In the meantime, I
> also tend to use highway=footway, footway=crossing, crossing=unmarked to
> connect an ending sidewalk to the road.
>
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:46 PM Andre Engels 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 can cross there (in the case you describe: If
>> there is an interruption in the hedge), I add a footway from the
>> sidewalk to the junction, if neither is the case, I add the driveway
>> or crossing point that is closest to the junction (on both sides if
>> necessary).
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:48 PM, 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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
>>
>> ___
>> 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

[Nick Bolten]

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
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.

I don't think we really have adequate tags to describe that situation, so
everyone makes due by either doing what you suggest (a half-crossing) or
connecting footways/sidewalks directly to roads. Neither makes perfect
semantic sense: it's not really a road crossing and it's also not really a
sidewalk, it's just a change of path that a pedestrian would realistically
need to make. It should probably use an entirely new tag for a pedestrian
transition of some sort (not unlike a *_link for roads), but that would of
course need to be hashed out in a separate proposal. In the meantime, I
also tend to use highway=footway, footway=crossing, crossing=unmarked to
connect an ending sidewalk to the road.

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:46 PM Andre Engels  wrote:

> 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 can cross there (in the case you describe: If
> there is an interruption in the hedge), I add a footway from the
> sidewalk to the junction, if neither is the case, I add the driveway
> or crossing point that is closest to the junction (on both sides if
> necessary).
>
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:48 PM, 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
>
>
>
> --
> André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
>
> ___
> 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

[Andre Engels]

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 can cross there (in the case you describe: If
there is an interruption in the hedge), I add a footway from the
sidewalk to the junction, if neither is the case, I add the driveway
or crossing point that is closest to the junction (on both sides if
necessary).

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:48 PM, 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



-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

[Marc Gemis]

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 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 closer to my house.


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

I think adding sidewalks might benefit pedestrian routing, and makes
it somewhat easier to add characteristics for wheelchair routing to
them. I only added driveways when I thought it might be useful for
routing (e.g house is not near main roads so routing needs some help
to properly work).

regards

m

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