Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
2011/3/22 Peter Wendorff : > Am 22.03.2011 19:59, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: >> >> 2011/3/22 Peter Wendorff: ...it is a tag that you use only on independent ways. The sidewalk is already comprised in the main road according to our data model, >>> >>> Where is this data model? I would say: nobody thought about sidewalks at >>> creating the data model - it's not defined. >>> If you claim that highway=residential includes sidewalks, that's new to >>> me - >>> and neither proofed nor (well) documented >> >> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways >> "A divided highway (also separated highway) is any highway where >> traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, >> concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said flows. " > > By foot I can cross grass without any problem - probably without perceiving > it - same by bike. > By foot I can cross concrete and steel probably, too - while not without > perception. yes, as I said, it would be desirable to define the separation to be able to decide whether you can cross or not. Still a separation by grass indicates a separate way. > You start to wide the scope of OSM from car drivers to pedestrians - but you > don't want to spread your scope to more!? I do. Why shouldn't I? What I also want is to distinguish sidewalks from other footways. > I agree: there should be a distinction - that's why footway=sidewalk is our > solution for that. what is the problem with having a distinct tag for it? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mar 22, 2011 12:19 PM, "Peter Wendorff" wrote: > > Slightly disagree here: > A sidewalks is a lane for a pedestrian in a low-traffic residential road. > Towards a young child I would define a sidewalk as a way - the child should not cross the street otherwhere than at marked and much as possible secured crossings. A way doesn't represent or correlate with a road. A way is just an ordered list of nodes. What is represented by a way is entirely determined by tags. I think some other issues are being brought into this discussion which IMHO are separate. First, this proposal doesn't supplant, replace or effect other proposals. I think that the sidewalk tag can live in harmony with other tags and standalone footways in the same way atm=yes doesn't proclude there being an amenity=atm tag. Secondly, I think that the issue of routing is getting confused with common sense and law. If there's a wall as a barrier then people will not drive into it. Similarly, if there is traffic, people will not run into the street to cross the road. Third, there's seems to be an undercurrent of "correctness" in this discussion. Let's remember that OSM is largely focused on topological consistency. We want to get the most data in OSM as possible and we can iteratively improve things. The problems we as a community encounter are largely when we make something complex for folks to map. > A wheelchair user will interpret the sidewalk as a separate way, not a lane, as long as there is a curb higher than a specific treshold - and that's the case nearly everywhere, where no marked crossing or at least a driveway to a house is located. Also, let's remember that a wheelchair user isn't brain dead. It'd be great to map those ramps, etc. but that's not something found on most commercial maps, so we'd actually be ahead of the game. > I know: A healthy, perhaps a little bit tired of life adult will cross the street wherever he wants; but a local car driver will also use the street where we objectively have to tag access=destination to have a shortcut. > But is that really a lane? Doesn't that indicate the sidewalk being a dedicated way? Its not a lane; it's a feature of the road, just as we have tags for roads lined with trees. Yes, you could also argue it's a separate way, etc., but in my mind, a pavement along the sides of a road is a sidewalk; and thus a road feature. >> and adding a separate highway=footway indicates that there is a barrier between the footway >> and the road. > > There is! Ask the next wheelchair user or old man/woman with a walking frame about the barrier a curb of normal height is for him I don't understand your point here. It sounds like you're concerned that people who are mobility impaired will have trouble, but right now there's very little data, so there's no way for them to get into trouble, since the routing software won't tell them to go anywhere. :) In other words, let's try to do the simple thing, get the data in, and then we can see what people want to do with it later. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
Am 22.03.2011 19:59, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: 2011/3/22 Peter Wendorff: ...it is a tag that you use only on independent ways. The sidewalk is already comprised in the main road according to our data model, Where is this data model? I would say: nobody thought about sidewalks at creating the data model - it's not defined. If you claim that highway=residential includes sidewalks, that's new to me - and neither proofed nor (well) documented http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways "A divided highway (also separated highway) is any highway where traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said flows. " By foot I can cross grass without any problem - probably without perceiving it - same by bike. By foot I can cross concrete and steel probably, too - while not without perception. While in the case of sidewalks there is indeed a physical separation (the kerb), it still doesn't quality because that kerb doesn't prevent movements between said flows. Sitting in a wheelchair and being 60 years old most probably I am prevented from crossing a curb of 12cm height - at least upwards. You start to wide the scope of OSM from car drivers to pedestrians - but you don't want to spread your scope to more!? and adding a separate highway=footway indicates that there is a barrier between the footway and the road. There is! Ask the next wheelchair user or old man/woman with a walking frame about the barrier a curb of normal height is for him. I agree that this part of our model is not very mature, and that it is always relative to the means of transportation if a barrier is preventing movement or not. Also in the case of dual carriageways you might physically be able in some cases / with some vehicles to change to the other way, even if not legally permitted. Still I keep the idea that sidewalks should be mapped in another way then independent footways, and this other way should not redefine highway=footway (i.e. use another tag). Any tagging of them with highway=footway is tagging for the routers/renders. I remember the big discussion about natural=tree. The critics there has been the meaning of the ancient proposal: tree should stand for lone standing or significant trees The question was: Is it correct to add a "only" to that sentence or not? The same I see in your argumentation: Footway was intended to map footways. Nobody - probably - thought about mapping sidewalks at that time. I agree: there should be a distinction - that's why footway=sidewalk is our solution for that. But to say, sidewalks are NO footways, is definitely wrong. Yes: you can say, the highway=footway is mapping for the renderer - but I don't care about the standard renderer to display sidewalks everywhere and everytime. I can perfectly life with saidewalks not being rendered - or only, if the space is left. But I don't see the argument to not map sidewalks as footways. If you don't want to render sidewalks in zoom levels up to 17 or 18 (higher zoom levels have enough space to render it nearly everywhere), you CAN exclude sidewalks mapped with highway=footway, footway=sidewalk very easily. Mapping for the renderer would be to not use highway=footway - because the renderers does not interpret footway=sidewalk in a good manner, yet. regards Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
2011/3/22 Peter Wendorff : >> ...it is a tag that you use >> only on independent ways. The sidewalk is already comprised in the >> main road according to our data model, > > Where is this data model? I would say: nobody thought about sidewalks at > creating the data model - it's not defined. > If you claim that highway=residential includes sidewalks, that's new to me - > and neither proofed nor (well) documented http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways "A divided highway (also separated highway) is any highway where traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said flows. " While in the case of sidewalks there is indeed a physical separation (the kerb), it still doesn't quality because that kerb doesn't prevent movements between said flows. >> and adding a separate highway=footway indicates that there is a barrier >> between the footway >> and the road. > > There is! Ask the next wheelchair user or old man/woman with a walking frame > about the barrier a curb of normal height is for him. I agree that this part of our model is not very mature, and that it is always relative to the means of transportation if a barrier is preventing movement or not. Also in the case of dual carriageways you might physically be able in some cases / with some vehicles to change to the other way, even if not legally permitted. Still I keep the idea that sidewalks should be mapped in another way then independent footways, and this other way should not redefine highway=footway (i.e. use another tag). Any tagging of them with highway=footway is tagging for the routers/renders. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
2011/3/22 Josh Doe : > Ah, I think I understand all the confusion now, as we have different > models entirely. In my (and I'm guessing David's) view of things, > sidewalks are NOT just another lane, but indeed a separate way. > Perhaps even our definitions of sidewalks are different. I think you > are thinking of city style sidewalks, where there is no barrier > between the sidewalk and the road. that's complex, sometimes there are, sometimes not. If there are continuous barriers hindering you to cross (like crash barriers) I would draw the sidewalk separately (and don't even see a need to specify that its a sidewalk, but have to objections either to doing so). > My sidewalk is not always strictly > parallel to the road, and indeed sometimes meanders near and far from > the road, and has barriers such as kerbs, grassy strips, and perhaps > even parking spaces between the sidewalk and the road. Here also I would differentiate: parking spaces could be a parking lane (parallel to the traffic -> lane) or orthogonal parking (not a lane, or maybe "less lane"). A kerb is not a barrier for a pedestrian (it is for wheelchairs, cars at higher speed and various other means of transport, depending also on the height of the kerb). Barriers are always relative to the way you move yourself. That was one of the reasons I started the area-relation-proposal. This would permit (at least in theory, don't know if a router could implement it) to define the barrier between ways and lanes, and you could decide whether you wanted to cross that 40 cm (1.3 ft) wall or walk (possibly for a long time) around it. Have also a look at this to get an impression about barriers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z19zFlPah-o > Let me quote > David's proposal: "When the sidewalk is on its own, i.e. is a > structure separated from the main street, it should be mapped > separately as highway=footway." So yes indeed, David and I are not > re-purposing highway=footway, since we are not applying it to lanes. yes, in these cases I already map the footways as footways (also if separated by grass). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
Am 22.03.2011 16:04, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: 2011/3/22 Josh Doe: Martin, On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:32 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/3/21 David Paleino: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:12:55 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/3/21 David Paleino: To not be misunderstood: I prefer explicit sidewalks (=separate ways) as I wrote above. But you should not map them as if they were independent ways. They aren't: have you checked my proposal? They're part of the same relation (street, or associatedStreet). If you need a relation for every sidewalk, it is clear that you are redefining footway, because not interpreting this relation will lead to misunderstanding for all footways (they would be understood as independent ways and routing would work worse then with no sidewalk mapped at all). Adding footway=sidewalk is not redefining highway=footway, just like saying service=parking_aisle is not redefining highway=service, rather it is a refinement. I disagree here. In the case of service it is a refinement, but in the case of footway it is not, because highway=service is the tag to use for smaller service ways, but highway=footway is not the tag you use for lanes (a kind of which sidewalks are), ... Slightly disagree here: A sidewalks is a lane for a pedestrian in a low-traffic residential road. Towards a young child I would define a sidewalk as a way - the child should not cross the street otherwhere than at marked and much as possible secured crossings. A wheelchair user will interpret the sidewalk as a separate way, not a lane, as long as there is a curb higher than a specific treshold - and that's the case nearly everywhere, where no marked crossing or at least a driveway to a house is located. I know: A healthy, perhaps a little bit tired of life adult will cross the street wherever he wants; but a local car driver will also use the street where we objectively have to tag access=destination to have a shortcut. I consider a sidewalk with the following assumptions: 1) It is intended for a sidewalk user (pedestrian, child on bike, skater) to use the street itself for driving. Therefore there is no constant change intended. 2) It is not allowed for a car to drive at the sidewalk (crossings excepted). Therefore there is no constant change intended either. But is that really a lane? Doesn't that indicate the sidewalk being a dedicated way? You can ask: But I can cross the street directly everywhere I want, that's not modelled in the data by modelling explicit ways. My answer would be: Yes, that's true. But what's the drawback of applications here? The worst case would be miss a cut where no crossing is present in OSM. I would like to have crossings everywhere, where - crossings are marked (islands, zebra crossings, pedestrian traffic signals and so on) - it is common to cross (left and right of street intersections; where a footway joins the sidewalk etc.) AND there is no better marked alternative around AND it's not forbidden to cross. ...it is a tag that you use only on independent ways. The sidewalk is already comprised in the main road according to our data model, Where is this data model? I would say: nobody thought about sidewalks at creating the data model - it's not defined. If you claim that highway=residential includes sidewalks, that's new to me - and neither proofed nor (well) documented and adding a separate highway=footway indicates that there is a barrier between the footway and the road. There is! Ask the next wheelchair user or old man/woman with a walking frame about the barrier a curb of normal height is for him. To overcome this, you would have to use highway=footway on lanes / sidewalks, what is not in accordance with the current conventions. Why not? As I wrote above: there ARE arguments to define a sidewalks as a dedicated way, and the current conventions are not common ones in this topic. regards Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:04 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2011/3/22 Josh Doe : >> Martin, >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:32 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer >> wrote: >>> 2011/3/21 David Paleino : On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:12:55 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2011/3/21 David Paleino : > To not be misunderstood: I prefer explicit sidewalks (=separate ways) > as I wrote above. But you should not map them as if they were > independent ways. They aren't: have you checked my proposal? They're part of the same relation (street, or associatedStreet). >>> >>> >>> If you need a relation for every sidewalk, it is clear that you are >>> redefining footway, because not interpreting this relation will lead >>> to misunderstanding for all footways (they would be understood as >>> independent ways and routing would work worse then with no sidewalk >>> mapped at all). >> >> Adding footway=sidewalk is not redefining highway=footway, just like >> saying service=parking_aisle is not redefining highway=service, rather >> it is a refinement. > > > I disagree here. In the case of service it is a refinement, but in the > case of footway it is not, because highway=service is the tag to use > for smaller service ways, but highway=footway is not the tag you use > for lanes (a kind of which sidewalks are), it is a tag that you use > only on independent ways. The sidewalk is already comprised in the > main road according to our data model, and adding a separate > highway=footway indicates that there is a barrier between the footway > and the road. To overcome this, you would have to use highway=footway > on lanes / sidewalks, what is not in accordance with the current > conventions. Ah, I think I understand all the confusion now, as we have different models entirely. In my (and I'm guessing David's) view of things, sidewalks are NOT just another lane, but indeed a separate way. Perhaps even our definitions of sidewalks are different. I think you are thinking of city style sidewalks, where there is no barrier between the sidewalk and the road. My sidewalk is not always strictly parallel to the road, and indeed sometimes meanders near and far from the road, and has barriers such as kerbs, grassy strips, and perhaps even parking spaces between the sidewalk and the road. Let me quote David's proposal: "When the sidewalk is on its own, i.e. is a structure separated from the main street, it should be mapped separately as highway=footway." So yes indeed, David and I are not re-purposing highway=footway, since we are not applying it to lanes. However I would say considering a sidewalk as a lane is inappropriate if there is any barrier whatsoever between it and other lanes. I can totally get on board with the lane concept for cycle ways, as from my experience they only have a painted line separating them from the road, but most sidewalks I know of have a raised kerb which is a barrier. However I can also imagine that in some areas there are "sidewalks" that are indeed just another lane next to lanes intended for motor vehicles, bicycles, etc., with no barrier, and I'd be fine considering those a lane. A kerb is certainly a barrier however. Hopefully this clarifies the issue a bit. I certainly can see the two concepts coexisting. Regards, -Josh ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
2011/3/22 Josh Doe : > Martin, > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:32 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> 2011/3/21 David Paleino : >>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:12:55 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/3/21 David Paleino : To not be misunderstood: I prefer explicit sidewalks (=separate ways) as I wrote above. But you should not map them as if they were independent ways. >>> >>> They aren't: have you checked my proposal? They're part of the same relation >>> (street, or associatedStreet). >> >> >> If you need a relation for every sidewalk, it is clear that you are >> redefining footway, because not interpreting this relation will lead >> to misunderstanding for all footways (they would be understood as >> independent ways and routing would work worse then with no sidewalk >> mapped at all). > > Adding footway=sidewalk is not redefining highway=footway, just like > saying service=parking_aisle is not redefining highway=service, rather > it is a refinement. I disagree here. In the case of service it is a refinement, but in the case of footway it is not, because highway=service is the tag to use for smaller service ways, but highway=footway is not the tag you use for lanes (a kind of which sidewalks are), it is a tag that you use only on independent ways. The sidewalk is already comprised in the main road according to our data model, and adding a separate highway=footway indicates that there is a barrier between the footway and the road. To overcome this, you would have to use highway=footway on lanes / sidewalks, what is not in accordance with the current conventions. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
Martin, On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:32 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2011/3/21 David Paleino : >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:12:55 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >>> 2011/3/21 David Paleino : >>> To not be misunderstood: I prefer explicit sidewalks (=separate ways) >>> as I wrote above. But you should not map them as if they were >>> independent ways. >> >> They aren't: have you checked my proposal? They're part of the same relation >> (street, or associatedStreet). > > > If you need a relation for every sidewalk, it is clear that you are > redefining footway, because not interpreting this relation will lead > to misunderstanding for all footways (they would be understood as > independent ways and routing would work worse then with no sidewalk > mapped at all). Adding footway=sidewalk is not redefining highway=footway, just like saying service=parking_aisle is not redefining highway=service, rather it is a refinement. Likewise, using relations are not redefining highway=footway; relations (to associate sidewalks with an adjacent road) are not required, but rather add information that routers can exploit to give more detailed directions. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages. If one wants both to associate a sidewalk with a road, AND to be specific about crossings, barriers, surface materials, width, etc, then it will get complicated no matter which method you prefer. With one you have two adjacent ways, but require a relation to associate them. With the other you might have to break the road into many arbitrary separate ways to account for changes in the sidewalk. Both methods require tools to enable clear and efficient mapping. And to be clear, I personally prefer mapping as separate ways, which works especially well for my area in the suburbs, but I'm not so concerned about creating relations right now. I can imagine it wouldn't be difficult to write a tool which would generate candidate sidewalk+road pairs based upon the geometry, which upon verification would automatically create or modify relations associating them. -Josh ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
2011/3/21 David Paleino : > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:04:38 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: >> [..] and I feel David wants something else entirely and >> is suffering from a bit of NIH syndrome, [..] > While I thought at the proposal entirely (almost, credits also go to #osm-it > folks) on my own, I seem to have reached the same conclusion as other mappers. There is also other proposals with similar aims: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Advanced_footway_and_cycleway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Footway cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
2011/3/22 Phil! Gold : > I would not support this proposal to the *exclusion* of mapping separate > ways. Rather, I would support this proposal as the simplest way to add > sidewalk data with the understanding that if a mapper wishes to add > further detail to the sidewalks that they do it via the separate-ways > method. But I think that a simple tagging approach that covers a great > number of common cases is worth using. I think mapping sidewalk=no at the street might be sufficient for the simple cases in Europe, because almost every street in European settlements has a sidewalk. cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
2011/3/21 David Paleino : > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:12:55 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> 2011/3/21 David Paleino : >> >> >> I agree with Serge: you would change the meaning of highway=footway >> >> (because to interpret it right after your amendment, you would have to >> >> look at the footway-key as well). >> > >> > Why? >> > Sidewalks are just a particular case of highway=footway. A router that >> > doesn't know about footway=*, can treat the sidewalk just fine, because it >> > is a footway, after all. >> >> No. Serge's way does tell the router that the sidewalk is just a part >> of the road, and that you can cross the road anytime. Your proposal >> doesn't tell the router this, and it would have to check for the next >> crossing and route you there and back if your target was just on the >> other side of the road. > > Then, if you really want, we can just add one tag to the road, say (weird key > name, but just to understand each other): is_crossable_everywhere=yes. > >> To not be misunderstood: I prefer explicit sidewalks (=separate ways) >> as I wrote above. But you should not map them as if they were >> independent ways. > > They aren't: have you checked my proposal? They're part of the same relation > (street, or associatedStreet). If you need a relation for every sidewalk, it is clear that you are redefining footway, because not interpreting this relation will lead to misunderstanding for all footways (they would be understood as independent ways and routing would work worse then with no sidewalk mapped at all). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
* M∡rtin Koppenhoefer [2011-03-21 18:03 +0100]: > The main purpose of detailing sidewalks is IMHO to be able to add > further details, which might be interesting for the users of the > sidewalk. I think that one very good reason for adding sidewalks is simply to allow better routing for foot traffic. A great many sidewalks run parallel to roads without any complicating obstacles or barriers; for those, not only is this proposal completely sufficient, but it is gives mappers a very simple way to map them. > All of these details are not possible to enter following this > proposal. As soon as you tried to enter more detail (using complicated > tags like sidewalk:width:right=0.7m) you will have to split the > street-highway even if it is not concerned itself, because of surface > changes or width changes on one of the sidewalks. I would not support this proposal to the *exclusion* of mapping separate ways. Rather, I would support this proposal as the simplest way to add sidewalk data with the understanding that if a mapper wishes to add further detail to the sidewalks that they do it via the separate-ways method. But I think that a simple tagging approach that covers a great number of common cases is worth using. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- No cow's like a horse and no horse like a cow. That's one similarity anyhow. -- "Similarity (Commutative Law)", Piet Hein --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On 21/03/2011 20:04, Serge Wroclawski wrote: That's partially true- it's true we have no official tags, but it's also true that the tags which are approved are the ones which get rendered, and the ones who people write software against. Well - sort-of. There's a correlation between what gets approved and what gets rendered but it this statement would be misleading to anyone stumbling upon it out of context. For example, the wiki page for OSM's Mapnik style makes clear that it's trac tickets (signifying what people are asking to be rendered) that's the driver. Also, at least one editor maintainer has made it clear that a tag's "approved" status has absolutely no bearing on whether it appears as a preset. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:12:55 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2011/3/21 David Paleino : > > >> I agree with Serge: you would change the meaning of highway=footway > >> (because to interpret it right after your amendment, you would have to > >> look at the footway-key as well). > > > > Why? > > Sidewalks are just a particular case of highway=footway. A router that > > doesn't know about footway=*, can treat the sidewalk just fine, because it > > is a footway, after all. > > No. Serge's way does tell the router that the sidewalk is just a part > of the road, and that you can cross the road anytime. Your proposal > doesn't tell the router this, and it would have to check for the next > crossing and route you there and back if your target was just on the > other side of the road. Then, if you really want, we can just add one tag to the road, say (weird key name, but just to understand each other): is_crossable_everywhere=yes. > To not be misunderstood: I prefer explicit sidewalks (=separate ways) > as I wrote above. But you should not map them as if they were > independent ways. They aren't: have you checked my proposal? They're part of the same relation (street, or associatedStreet). A router would only check for a highway=crossing node on the way itself if an option "only cross road at permitted places" is marked. No? -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:17:10 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > [..] Given I have better things to do tonight, such as studying for my exam on Wednesday, I won't send any more mails to this thread. So please forgive me: I don't even know if I'll have time to read the mails. I'll surely read them before making my proposal though. Enjoy your flames :) David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On 21/03/2011 16:29, David Paleino wrote:
What I understood was that the first tagging example of my page was
that [1]
was generally accepted.
[1]:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Hanska/Sidewalk#Mapping_as_a_separate_way
The original page said something like:
if ( sidewalk is a structure separated from the main street )
{
tag using "method (a)"
}
else
{ // the sidewalk is just a painted lane on the street
tag using "method (b)"
}
You suggested that the "else" part of the above should be "deprecated".
What I presume that you're suggesting is that we should always use
"method (a)" regardless of whether sidewalk is a structure separated
from the main street or not, rather than make the "if" rather than the
"else" always true (that would mean changing a lot of roads in the real
world!).
One problem is that there's quite a lot of data (the sidewalk is just a
painted lane on the street) already mapped using method (b), so any
router would need to be able to cope with that data, as well as any
existing and future data mapped using method (a).
Another problem is that mapping using method (b) is at least twice as
much work as method (a), which will lead to sidewalks getting mapped
even less than they are now (which, to be frank, isn't much).
In summary, I don't think that it is a good idea to suggest that mappers
always create separate ways for sidewalks (although in some cases it of
course makes sense to do so).
Cheers,
Andy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
Blerg. It turns out Chris's mail wasn't off list and neither was mine. Apologies to all. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
Well, one does occasionally see a wall, railing, or low hedge between the sidewalk and the road, in order to discourage crossing the road except at designated points. However, such barriers are not common. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk >From :mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com Date :Mon Mar 21 15:12:55 America/Chicago 2011 2011/3/21 David Paleino : >> I agree with Serge: you would change the meaning of highway=footway >> (because to interpret it right after your amendment, you would have to >> look at the footway-key as well). > > Why? > Sidewalks are just a particular case of highway=footway. A router that doesn't > know about footway=*, can treat the sidewalk just fine, because it is a > footway, after all. No. Serge's way does tell the router that the sidewalk is just a part of the road, and that you can cross the road anytime. Your proposal doesn't tell the router this, and it would have to check for the next crossing and route you there and back if your target was just on the other side of the road. To not be misunderstood: I prefer explicit sidewalks (=separate ways) as I wrote above. But you should not map them as if they were independent ways. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:04:38 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > [..] and I feel David wants something else entirely and > is suffering from a bit of NIH syndrome, [..] While I thought at the proposal entirely (almost, credits also go to #osm-it folks) on my own, I seem to have reached the same conclusion as other mappers. TagInfo lists 6000+ footway=sidewalk (I only mapped a couple of them just as a proof of concept, so it must be someone else). I might have re-invented the proposal, but it ended up being consistent with what other people thought in other places/times/countries/... . David http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/footway#values -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On 3/21/2011 3:50 PM, Chris Hill wrote: There are, never have been and probably never will be official tags. Anyone can use any tag at any time for any purpose. It follows that there are no unofficial tags either. No disagreement, but the motivation for at least some measure of agreement on a tag convention is to 1.) Allow users of map data to be able to use it without needing to download and statistically analyze and guess about 30 GB of tags in world map data. 2.) Some people would like for their mapping work to have a purpose rather than just to have typed a set of made-up sequences of letters into some geo location. It's not so much a policing action and rule enforcement, as it is a wish to have as complete and useful set of map data as possible. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
2011/3/21 David Paleino : >> I agree with Serge: you would change the meaning of highway=footway >> (because to interpret it right after your amendment, you would have to >> look at the footway-key as well). > > Why? > Sidewalks are just a particular case of highway=footway. A router that doesn't > know about footway=*, can treat the sidewalk just fine, because it is a > footway, after all. No. Serge's way does tell the router that the sidewalk is just a part of the road, and that you can cross the road anytime. Your proposal doesn't tell the router this, and it would have to check for the next crossing and route you there and back if your target was just on the other side of the road. To not be misunderstood: I prefer explicit sidewalks (=separate ways) as I wrote above. But you should not map them as if they were independent ways. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Chris Hill wrote: > On 21/03/11 19:21, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > [...] >> >> I suggested re-opening the sidewalk proposal because I have a specific >> need for this data and would like to use official, rather than >> unofficial tags. > > [deliberately off list to keep the noise down] > Serge, > There are, never have been and probably never will be official tags. Anyone > can use any tag at any time for any purpose. It follows that there are no > unofficial tags either. That's partially true- it's true we have no official tags, but it's also true that the tags which are approved are the ones which get rendered, and the ones who people write software against. > The proposal process uses a voting system which makes people feel that they > have some kind of official status and this is fundamentally wrong. It leads > to people running bots to 'correct' tagging to the 'standard' or 'official' > version when no such thing exists. Also just because 6 people voted for a > tag means they think it MUST be rendered or MUST be supported by editors or > MUST be used buy routers. I'm of two minds on this, so please tell me why this is a bad thing in your mind? > Many people just don't get this but it is the greatest strength of OSM. If > you need 'official' tags then you can never something novel to OSM until a > new tag has been authorised. > > BTW, just who should police these tags? > > Please discuss tags, please document the tags that are used, but please > don't assume that the stupid, broken voting system somehow makes tags > official and more useful. I'll admit I'm a bit frustrated because I have a very pragmatic problem to solve and have spent several weeks trying to make practical tools to solve it, and I feel David wants something else entirely and is suffering from a bit of NIH syndrome, and Josh (who I think is actually local to me) doesn't see what I'm doing because I haven't announced it yet. But maybe you'll have some feedback... Go to http://mappingdc.emacsen.net/pl2/ and what you /should/ (hopefully) see is a map of DC, and you can select DC SIdewalks as a background. That's real DC sidewalk polygon data. But it's too complex. I'd like to attach those as information about the streets. Also if you look at the stylesheets, you'll see Pedestrian Wireframe- that's a style I've created that highlights sidewalk data, missing sidewalk data, and highway=footway. In other words, I'm trying to make it as simple as possible to get this data in OSM, without an import. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:18 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > In all cases where the sidewalk is not perfectly parallel, or where > you want to add barriers between the sidewalk and the road, you will > in any case have to move to the other scheme. > > IMHO explicit sidewalks have the huge benefit of simplicity. I know > that many of you are computer scientists eager to create the most > elegant way to model all kind of complex situations with pure > mathematics, but don't forget that we are building the people's map: > the easier it is to contribute (and to understand the model) the more > people can actually map. +1 I've mapped sidewalks as highway=footway. It makes sense to do that when you're mapping a park, when mapping a walking area in a community (eg townhouses), but most areas which are paved and designated pedestrian areas in an urban or suburban area are directly associated with a road. In my case, I see a city full of street data, where most streets have a sidewalk. I want users to be able to map those sidewalks quickly and easily, as Martin says. But beyond that, I don't see a good solution to routing without the sidewalks tags on the road way. Are there other ways to accomplish the same task? Sure. You could create a separate way which is the sidewalk, tag it with all the appropriate tags, then create a relation which has both the road and the sidewalk. The problem is that while relations are more "correct", it's hard to execute. I can explain to a new mapper that if a sidewalk exists, tag the street "sidewalk=yes", it's much harder to show them how to create the second way, tag that way, then to create a new relation, move the appropriate tags (like name) from the road way to the relation, etc. sidewalk=yes is a single step, and I have the code to make it a dropdown in PL2 (JOSM is forthcoming). To create the relation in order to get the routing right is a multistep process and it's hard to make smooth. >> My problem with your answer is, that tagging at the main street is hard to >> expand to explicit mapping later. > > > Yes, most likely we would remove these tags and draw explicit ways later. You could do this, or let sidewalks be rendered, but not explicit ways. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:47:39 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2011/3/21 David Paleino : > > To tag a sidewalk: > > highway=footway > > footway=sidewalk > > > >> I disagree. As mentioned in the Sidewalk tag, we already have > >> highway=footway, which is what David's proposal would largely change, > > > > Change? My proposal would not change footway's meaning, since, to define a > > sidewalk, you need to add "footway=sidewalk". > > I agree with Serge: you would change the meaning of highway=footway > (because to interpret it right after your amendment, you would have to > look at the footway-key as well). Why? Sidewalks are just a particular case of highway=footway. A router that doesn't know about footway=*, can treat the sidewalk just fine, because it is a footway, after all. David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On 21/03/11 19:21, Serge Wroclawski wrote: [...] I suggested re-opening the sidewalk proposal because I have a specific need for this data and would like to use official, rather than unofficial tags. [deliberately off list to keep the noise down] Serge, There are, never have been and probably never will be official tags. Anyone can use any tag at any time for any purpose. It follows that there are no unofficial tags either. The proposal process uses a voting system which makes people feel that they have some kind of official status and this is fundamentally wrong. It leads to people running bots to 'correct' tagging to the 'standard' or 'official' version when no such thing exists. Also just because 6 people voted for a tag means they think it MUST be rendered or MUST be supported by editors or MUST be used buy routers. Many people just don't get this but it is the greatest strength of OSM. If you need 'official' tags then you can never something novel to OSM until a new tag has been authorised. BTW, just who should police these tags? Please discuss tags, please document the tags that are used, but please don't assume that the stupid, broken voting system somehow makes tags official and more useful. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
2011/3/21 David Paleino : > To tag a sidewalk: > highway=footway > footway=sidewalk > >> I disagree. As mentioned in the Sidewalk tag, we already have >> highway=footway, which is what David's proposal would largely change, > > Change? My proposal would not change footway's meaning, since, to define a > sidewalk, you need to add "footway=sidewalk". I agree with Serge: you would change the meaning of highway=footway (because to interpret it right after your amendment, you would have to look at the footway-key as well). Don't do it like this, rather use highway=sidewalk or any other tagging that doesn't redefine well established tags. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:21:02 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:47 PM, David Paleino > wrote: > > > Since "my" proposal was the one most agreed on, why can't you just start > > using the tags/way-of-mapping in my page? :) > > David, > > I suggested re-opening the sidewalk proposal because I have a specific > need for this data and would like to use official, rather than > unofficial tags. And, I asked you to kindly wait a couple of days more. That's it. And remember: there's no such thing as "official"/"unofficial" tags in OSM. > What specifically is your concern? You've used the word "my proposal" > several times. If your concern it's credit, I'll happily put your name > on the proposal. If it's not credit, then use the outlined tagging RFC > process. I don't really care about credit. "My" proposal is to distinguish it from "your" proposal. I could have said "mapping sidewalks as a separate way" vs. "tagging the main road". But you see that's long :) > >> If you have specific issues with the proposal, please bring them up > >> for discussion. > > > > The issue is: your proposal is the opposite of what was agreed upon last > > week. I'll be able to get some free time on Wednesday/Thursday: can you > > wait up to then? I'll make a definitive proposal :) > > You're free to make recommendations to change it, and you're free to > vote against it, but the process is now in place. That's *VERY* rude. We are a community, your answer sounds like "sorry, but the bureaucracy machine started, and I can't do anything". That's not true, and it seems like you're the only one pushing for the proposal to be started *TODAY*. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:24:55 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Josh Doe > wrote: > > Serge, > > I think we're really talking about two proposals here, both of which > > have merit. The linked proposal has been around for a while, and > > involves tagging the road to indicate the presence of a sidewalk walk > > on one or both sides of the road. David refers to this proposal as > > "deprecated" [1]. > > He can claim that, but it's not depricated; the proposal is 3 years > old and wasn't ever voted on. "deprecated" for *ME*. Just because I separately thought at that proposal before, without looking at the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Hanska/Sidewalk_old > > What David proposed, and what I'm interested in, is mapping the > > sidewalk as a separate way from the road. This rough proposal is on > > his page here [2]. > > That's entirely separate. > > I have views about that, but they're not relevant in this discussion. I believe they could be relevant. > [..] > David should follow the tagging RFC process and make a proposal. I > don't want to overload one simple tag with something else. To tag a sidewalk: highway=footway footway=sidewalk That's it. You can add more tags to define crossings and sidewalk properties (think of wheelchair=yes, or width=, or [..]). I don't see this as bloated as you describe. > > We should certainly link both together though, so users can determine > > what level of detail is appropriate. > > I disagree. As mentioned in the Sidewalk tag, we already have > highway=footway, which is what David's proposal would largely change, Change? My proposal would not change footway's meaning, since, to define a sidewalk, you need to add "footway=sidewalk". > rather than an additional tag on roads. In other words, this is a tag > about roads, not footways. No. Sidewalks *ARE* *NOT* roads. Don't take it bad, but I wish you were more cooperative. I have real life issues right now, and promised to make a "proper proposal" on Wednesday/Thursday. You can't wait two days? Well, I'm going to vote against your proposal. Note, however, that this is a bit rude of you; you want to introduce a badly designed tagging scheme and waste everyone's resources/time here. David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Josh Doe wrote: > Serge, > I think we're really talking about two proposals here, both of which > have merit. The linked proposal has been around for a while, and > involves tagging the road to indicate the presence of a sidewalk walk > on one or both sides of the road. David refers to this proposal as > "deprecated" [1]. He can claim that, but it's not depricated; the proposal is 3 years old and wasn't ever voted on. > What David proposed, and what I'm interested in, is mapping the > sidewalk as a separate way from the road. This rough proposal is on > his page here [2]. That's entirely separate. I have views about that, but they're not relevant in this discussion. > I think both schemes can coexist. In cities, especially ones with > regular grids, the first scheme might be preferable for simplicity. > However David's scheme has advantages when sidewalks don't have a > constant offset from the road, and if there is a desire for precise > navigation. In my area of suburbia, I plan to use David's scheme. David should follow the tagging RFC process and make a proposal. I don't want to overload one simple tag with something else. > We should certainly link both together though, so users can determine > what level of detail is appropriate. I disagree. As mentioned in the Sidewalk tag, we already have highway=footway, which is what David's proposal would largely change, rather than an additional tag on roads. In other words, this is a tag about roads, not footways. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:47 PM, David Paleino wrote: > Since "my" proposal was the one most agreed on, why can't you just start using > the tags/way-of-mapping in my page? :) David, I suggested re-opening the sidewalk proposal because I have a specific need for this data and would like to use official, rather than unofficial tags. What specifically is your concern? You've used the word "my proposal" several times. If your concern it's credit, I'll happily put your name on the proposal. If it's not credit, then use the outlined tagging RFC process. >> If you have specific issues with the proposal, please bring them up >> for discussion. > > The issue is: your proposal is the opposite of what was agreed upon last week. > I'll be able to get some free time on Wednesday/Thursday: can you wait up to > then? I'll make a definitive proposal :) You're free to make recommendations to change it, and you're free to vote against it, but the process is now in place. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On 3/21/2011 1:03 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: The main purpose of detailing sidewalks is IMHO to be able to add further details, which might be interesting for the users of the sidewalk. This could be obstacles (barrier) or narrow stretches of the sidewalk, where for instance a wheelchair could not pass. Or it could be details about the sidewalk itself (surface), or details to enhance the rendering (e.g. in higher zoom levels). It could also be a means to indicate the position of lowered kerbs, separations between the sidewalk and the road, etc. Also a bus stop bench and other features could be on either side of the sidewalk. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
2011/3/21 Peter Wendorff : > He said, they prefer the sidewalk:left|right:*-tagging scheme at the > street's ways. > When I asked how they would like to model crossings - like I asked here, too > - he did not have an answer. yes, and even if you mapped them perfectly jsut using parameters: as long as you don't have very good (I'd say almost "impossibly good") editor support for this stuff (virtual ways displayed and the like) it will not remain for long in a good condition: other mappers will likely either break these complex parametric crossings, or not edit them at all (both not what we want). In all cases where the sidewalk is not perfectly parallel, or where you want to add barriers between the sidewalk and the road, you will in any case have to move to the other scheme. IMHO explicit sidewalks have the huge benefit of simplicity. I know that many of you are computer scientists eager to create the most elegant way to model all kind of complex situations with pure mathematics, but don't forget that we are building the people's map: the easier it is to contribute (and to understand the model) the more people can actually map. > My problem with your answer is, that tagging at the main street is hard to > expand to explicit mapping later. Yes, most likely we would remove these tags and draw explicit ways later. > I fear, we urgently need a tagging scheme for way groups (the old multi-lane > discussion) to come to a good solution, as it's not possible to talk about > sidewalks without talking about parking lanes, cycle lanes, cycle ways and > even bus lanes at the street. +1, I also want this. The area relation [1] actually would be an alternative to map sidewalks and obstacles, and to define what is between a dual-carriage way (because often pedestrians can cross them, e.g. when the separation is just grass). It also has the benefit that you get the road as an area if you don't map the sidewalks at their center but on the outer border. Cheers, Martin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Area ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
Well... I spoke to Pascal Neis, maintainer and developer of openrouteservice.org and rollstuhlrouting.de a few weeks ago about their plans to support routing along sidewalks. He said, they prefer the sidewalk:left|right:*-tagging scheme at the street's ways. When I asked how they would like to model crossings - like I asked here, too - he did not have an answer. My problem with your answer is, that tagging at the main street is hard to expand to explicit mapping later. I thought about several possibilities here: * A plugin for JOSM to create sidewalks along a selected street (have not much time to code currently, but there is a concept), * A plugin or script to expand the tagged variant to explicit mapped sidewalks I fear, we urgently need a tagging scheme for way groups (the old multi-lane discussion) to come to a good solution, as it's not possible to talk about sidewalks without talking about parking lanes, cycle lanes, cycle ways and even bus lanes at the street. regards Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
Hi Peter, Based on what you're saying I'd highly encourage you to map the sidewalks as separate ways per David's proposal. Like Martin said, there will inevitably be barriers on the sidewalk, varying widths, and other issues that will get very complicated to map on the road using sidewalk:left:barrier and the like. Even your simple case of tagging crossings gets very complicated. I would tag the road itself only in the simplest of situations, but if you want to start mapping crossings, barriers, etc I would move to David's scheme. I've successfully been mapping this way for a while now, and it's very satisfying to use a routing service like Open.Mapquest.com to immediately get results for routing along the sidewalks. They may support the sidewalk:left/right/both scheme, or other routing engines may support this, but IMHO it's far more straightforward to map sidewalks as separate ways. -Josh On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote: > Hi. > I agree that the schemes could possibly coexist. > What I'm missing currently at the option to tag sidewalks as tags at the > main street (the option [1]) is the possibility to tag detailled crossings. > How to tag attributes of a e.g. zebra crossing differing between left and > right of the way? > Including "namespaces" left and right might be okay at ways, but the > crossing itself is usually tagged on a node of the way, if the sidewalks are > not mapped separately. > > The "hack" around that would be to map sidewalks separately around the > crossings itself - but then there is no argument left to not do that > everywhere in the city, too. > > If anybody has a solution to tag crossings with tags only at the street's > way, I would appreciate to learn more. > > My target group are especially people with impairments - blind people or > people with wheelchairs. Here curb heights (sloped_curb), tactile pavings > (tactile_paving) and features of traffic signals are especially important. > > regards > Peter > > Am 21.03.2011 17:57, schrieb Josh Doe: >> >> Serge, >> I think we're really talking about two proposals here, both of which >> have merit. The linked proposal has been around for a while, and >> involves tagging the road to indicate the presence of a sidewalk walk >> on one or both sides of the road. David refers to this proposal as >> "deprecated" [1]. >> >> What David proposed, and what I'm interested in, is mapping the >> sidewalk as a separate way from the road. This rough proposal is on >> his page here [2]. >> >> I think both schemes can coexist. In cities, especially ones with >> regular grids, the first scheme might be preferable for simplicity. >> However David's scheme has advantages when sidewalks don't have a >> constant offset from the road, and if there is a desire for precise >> navigation. In my area of suburbia, I plan to use David's scheme. >> >> We should certainly link both together though, so users can determine >> what level of detail is appropriate. >> >> -Josh >> >> >> [1]: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Hanska/Sidewalk#Tagging_the_main_way_.28DEPRECATED.29 >> [2]: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Hanska/Sidewalk#Mapping_as_a_separate_way >> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Serge Wroclawski >> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:35 PM, David Paleino wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:29:28 +0100, David Paleino wrote: > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:17:10 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > >> As per the discussion last week about Sidewalks, I'm re-opening the >> sidewalk proposal as per: >> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk >> >> We've already had some preliminary discussion on this tag and there's >> been very minimal disagreement, which is a good sign for its adoption. > > NAK. > What I understood was that the first tagging example of my page was > that [1] > was generally accepted. Erm.. ok, I hope it was understandable :) >>> >>> I don't understand, so maybe you can elaborate. >>> >>> David, you expressed some interest in this last week, and Josh >>> suggested that since you were so interested, you make the proposal, >>> but I didn't see anything, and I have a specific project I want to use >>> these tags, so I've gone ahead and done so. >>> >>> If you have specific issues with the proposal, please bring them up >>> for discussion. >>> >>> - Serge >>> >>> ___ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Taggin
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
Hi. I agree that the schemes could possibly coexist. What I'm missing currently at the option to tag sidewalks as tags at the main street (the option [1]) is the possibility to tag detailled crossings. How to tag attributes of a e.g. zebra crossing differing between left and right of the way? Including "namespaces" left and right might be okay at ways, but the crossing itself is usually tagged on a node of the way, if the sidewalks are not mapped separately. The "hack" around that would be to map sidewalks separately around the crossings itself - but then there is no argument left to not do that everywhere in the city, too. If anybody has a solution to tag crossings with tags only at the street's way, I would appreciate to learn more. My target group are especially people with impairments - blind people or people with wheelchairs. Here curb heights (sloped_curb), tactile pavings (tactile_paving) and features of traffic signals are especially important. regards Peter Am 21.03.2011 17:57, schrieb Josh Doe: Serge, I think we're really talking about two proposals here, both of which have merit. The linked proposal has been around for a while, and involves tagging the road to indicate the presence of a sidewalk walk on one or both sides of the road. David refers to this proposal as "deprecated" [1]. What David proposed, and what I'm interested in, is mapping the sidewalk as a separate way from the road. This rough proposal is on his page here [2]. I think both schemes can coexist. In cities, especially ones with regular grids, the first scheme might be preferable for simplicity. However David's scheme has advantages when sidewalks don't have a constant offset from the road, and if there is a desire for precise navigation. In my area of suburbia, I plan to use David's scheme. We should certainly link both together though, so users can determine what level of detail is appropriate. -Josh [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Hanska/Sidewalk#Tagging_the_main_way_.28DEPRECATED.29 [2]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Hanska/Sidewalk#Mapping_as_a_separate_way On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:35 PM, David Paleino wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:29:28 +0100, David Paleino wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:17:10 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: As per the discussion last week about Sidewalks, I'm re-opening the sidewalk proposal as per: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk We've already had some preliminary discussion on this tag and there's been very minimal disagreement, which is a good sign for its adoption. NAK. What I understood was that the first tagging example of my page was that [1] was generally accepted. Erm.. ok, I hope it was understandable :) I don't understand, so maybe you can elaborate. David, you expressed some interest in this last week, and Josh suggested that since you were so interested, you make the proposal, but I didn't see anything, and I have a specific project I want to use these tags, so I've gone ahead and done so. If you have specific issues with the proposal, please bring them up for discussion. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
2011/3/21 Serge Wroclawski : > As per the discussion last week about Sidewalks, I'm re-opening the > sidewalk proposal as per: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk basically your are suggesting cycleway=track for sidewalks. This works up to some extend, but is not suitable to indicate more then whether there is a sidewalk (and on which side) or not. The main purpose of detailing sidewalks is IMHO to be able to add further details, which might be interesting for the users of the sidewalk. This could be obstacles (barrier) or narrow stretches of the sidewalk, where for instance a wheelchair could not pass. Or it could be details about the sidewalk itself (surface), or details to enhance the rendering (e.g. in higher zoom levels). It could also be a means to indicate the position of lowered kerbs, separations between the sidewalk and the road, etc. All of these details are not possible to enter following this proposal. As soon as you tried to enter more detail (using complicated tags like sidewalk:width:right=0.7m) you will have to split the street-highway even if it is not concerned itself, because of surface changes or width changes on one of the sidewalks. This will on the long run result in very complicated/intransparent structures and many short pieces for the road. I discourage you to map them like this. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
Serge, I think we're really talking about two proposals here, both of which have merit. The linked proposal has been around for a while, and involves tagging the road to indicate the presence of a sidewalk walk on one or both sides of the road. David refers to this proposal as "deprecated" [1]. What David proposed, and what I'm interested in, is mapping the sidewalk as a separate way from the road. This rough proposal is on his page here [2]. I think both schemes can coexist. In cities, especially ones with regular grids, the first scheme might be preferable for simplicity. However David's scheme has advantages when sidewalks don't have a constant offset from the road, and if there is a desire for precise navigation. In my area of suburbia, I plan to use David's scheme. We should certainly link both together though, so users can determine what level of detail is appropriate. -Josh [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Hanska/Sidewalk#Tagging_the_main_way_.28DEPRECATED.29 [2]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Hanska/Sidewalk#Mapping_as_a_separate_way On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:35 PM, David Paleino wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:29:28 +0100, David Paleino wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:17:10 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: >>> >>> > As per the discussion last week about Sidewalks, I'm re-opening the >>> > sidewalk proposal as per: >>> > >>> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk >>> > >>> > We've already had some preliminary discussion on this tag and there's >>> > been very minimal disagreement, which is a good sign for its adoption. >>> >>> NAK. >>> What I understood was that the first tagging example of my page was that [1] >>> was generally accepted. >> >> Erm.. ok, I hope it was understandable :) > > I don't understand, so maybe you can elaborate. > > David, you expressed some interest in this last week, and Josh > suggested that since you were so interested, you make the proposal, > but I didn't see anything, and I have a specific project I want to use > these tags, so I've gone ahead and done so. > > If you have specific issues with the proposal, please bring them up > for discussion. > > - Serge > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:39:52 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > David, you expressed some interest in this last week, and Josh > suggested that since you were so interested, you make the proposal, And I will... > but I didn't see anything, ...just not enough time right now (university exams -- see later). > and I have a specific project I want to use > these tags, so I've gone ahead > and done so. Since "my" proposal was the one most agreed on, why can't you just start using the tags/way-of-mapping in my page? :) > If you have specific issues with the proposal, please bring them up > for discussion. The issue is: your proposal is the opposite of what was agreed upon last week. I'll be able to get some free time on Wednesday/Thursday: can you wait up to then? I'll make a definitive proposal :) Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:35 PM, David Paleino wrote: > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:29:28 +0100, David Paleino wrote: > >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:17:10 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: >> >> > As per the discussion last week about Sidewalks, I'm re-opening the >> > sidewalk proposal as per: >> > >> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk >> > >> > We've already had some preliminary discussion on this tag and there's >> > been very minimal disagreement, which is a good sign for its adoption. >> >> NAK. >> What I understood was that the first tagging example of my page was that [1] >> was generally accepted. > > Erm.. ok, I hope it was understandable :) I don't understand, so maybe you can elaborate. David, you expressed some interest in this last week, and Josh suggested that since you were so interested, you make the proposal, but I didn't see anything, and I have a specific project I want to use these tags, so I've gone ahead and done so. If you have specific issues with the proposal, please bring them up for discussion. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:29:28 +0100, David Paleino wrote: > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:17:10 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > > > As per the discussion last week about Sidewalks, I'm re-opening the > > sidewalk proposal as per: > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk > > > > We've already had some preliminary discussion on this tag and there's > > been very minimal disagreement, which is a good sign for its adoption. > > NAK. > What I understood was that the first tagging example of my page was that [1] > was generally accepted. Erm.. ok, I hope it was understandable :) s/the first tagging example of my page was that// -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:17:10 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > As per the discussion last week about Sidewalks, I'm re-opening the > sidewalk proposal as per: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk > > We've already had some preliminary discussion on this tag and there's > been very minimal disagreement, which is a good sign for its adoption. NAK. What I understood was that the first tagging example of my page was that [1] was generally accepted. [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Hanska/Sidewalk#Mapping_as_a_separate_way The page you linked is instead what I defined as "deprecated" on my page. Did I miss something? David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
As per the discussion last week about Sidewalks, I'm re-opening the sidewalk proposal as per: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk We've already had some preliminary discussion on this tag and there's been very minimal disagreement, which is a good sign for its adoption. I do want to emphasize that this proposal does not in any way replace the existing highway=footway tag. This will remain separate and untouched. Also, if accepted, there will be a tag link from Pavement to Sidewalk made in the Wiki, and a link from the highway=footway tag to indicate the possible use of sidwalk instead. If there are any other issues with this tag, let's discuss them now so we can get into the voting process! - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
