Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting result - Pedestrian lane
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 01:31, Alessandro Sarretta wrote: > > And in case on the left we have a shared cycle/foot lane? > > cycleway:left=lane > pedestrian_lane=left > segregated=no > > or > > cycleway:left=lane > footway:left=lane > segregated=no > > I think discussing of specific examples could help us clarifying which > solution is better (or more usable). A shared foot and cycle–lane is only one feature, therefore there should only be one lane tag IMHO, not two. Because this is a separate feature, likely with its own legal rules (i guess that pedestrians have priority over cyclists?), i think a separate tag like foot_cycle_lane=left/right/both would make most sense. Another possibility were pedestrian_lane:bicycle=designated, but this would imply that a shared foot and cycle–lane is a subtype of a pedestrian lane. I'm unsure if this is sensible. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting result - Pedestrian lane
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 13:06, Marc Gemis wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:36 PM Markus wrote: > > > > In my opinion, footway[:left/right]=lane isn't a good idea for the > > following reasons: 1. footway=lane is a contradiction, as a lane (part > > of a road/path) isn't a footway (separate path). > > But isn't this exactly the same as we do for cycleway=lane? Yes, it is, and it doesn't make much sense either, as a cycle lane isn't a cycleway. (Oddly enough, the very similar US term bikeway includes cycle lanes according to some definitions, while it excludes them according to other definitions.) I would have chosen cycle_lane=left/right/both instead, also because "lane" (the type) is more important than left/right/both (the detail) and would therefore belong to the key instead of the value. (Besides, cycleway is already a value in highway=cycleway.) > I would love to see consistency between cycleway and footway mapping. There's already an inconsistency: separated footpaths are tagged sidewalk=left/right/both while separated cycle paths are tagged cycleway[:left/right]=track. Therefore i think it would be better to not introduce more inconsistencies in pedestrian infrastructure tagging. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting result - Pedestrian lane
sent from a phone > On 5. Dec 2019, at 07:17, Marc Gemis wrote: > > But we are not mapping the users of the lane, we are trying to map the > construction, not? > The construction is some paint on a surface that would be used by cars > if there was no paint. no, we are not just mapping the physical appearance, we are mostly focusing on the meaning of things Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting result - Pedestrian lane
But we are not mapping the users of the lane, we are trying to map the construction, not? The construction is some paint on a surface that would be used by cars if there was no paint. Since the "construction" is the same for pedestrian lanes and cycle lanes, I thought that having a similar tagging scheme for both would be beneficial. After all, we do use highway=footway and highway=cycleway as well, although they are constructed for different groups (pedestrians and "vehicles"). regards m On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 3:52 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 13:06 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis : >> >> I would love to see consistency between cycleway and footway mapping. > > > > IMHO these are quite different, bicycles are generally considered vehicles by > the law and pedestrians are not. It doesn't seem to make sense to have > "consistency" here, provided this would imply dealing in the same way with > them. > > 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] Feature Proposal - Voting result - Pedestrian lane
Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 13:06 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis : > I would love to see consistency between cycleway and footway mapping. IMHO these are quite different, bicycles are generally considered vehicles by the law and pedestrians are not. It doesn't seem to make sense to have "consistency" here, provided this would imply dealing in the same way with them. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting result - Pedestrian lane
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:36 PM Markus wrote: > > In my opinion, footway[:left/right]=lane isn't a good idea for the > following reasons: 1. footway=lane is a contradiction, as a lane (part > of a road/path) isn't a footway (separate path). But isn't this exactly the same as we do for cycleway=lane? I would love to see consistency between cycleway and footway mapping. regards. m. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting result - Pedestrian lane
Thank you Markus for this summary. I think that the issue of having a good way to describe marked lanes on the road dedicated for people to walk is still there. In my opinion it needs a more extensive discussion and some tagging and graphic examples to show simple and complex application. As an example, I'm thinking about detailed mapping for pedestrian (or even people with disabilities) that might need additional information. Information on width could help to understand if that footway is safe for wheelchair, or colour could help visually impaired people (or even smoothness values that can differ from the main road). In an example with pedestrian lanes (or let's call them footway lanes, or even sidewalk lanes, ...) on both sides of a two-ways road we could have on the left side a 1m-wide lane, on the right side a red lane. How should we map them? pedestrian_lane=both pedestrian_lane:left:width=1 m pedestrian_lane:right:colour=red or something like footway=lane footway:left:width=1 m footway:right:colour=red And in case on the left we have a shared cycle/foot lane? cycleway:left=lane pedestrian_lane=left segregated=no or cycleway:left=lane footway:left=lane segregated=no I think discussing of specific examples could help us clarifying which solution is better (or more usable). m2c Ale On 03/12/19 21:35, Markus wrote: Dear all, The voting on the proposal for a new key pedestrian_lane=* for lanes designated for pedestrians is over. 8 people voted for the proposal, 5 against it and 1 person abstained. This is an approval by 62%, which is below the required 75% majority. Therefore the proposal has been rejected. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pedestrian_lane The following reasons for opposing the proposal were given: - footway[:left/right]=lane should be used instead of the proposed pedestrian_lane=left/right/both. (mentioned twice) - More discussion is needed. (mentioned twice) - Disagreement with the definition of sidewalk=* being a raised or otherwise physically separated footpath at the side of a road. (mentioned once) In my opinion, footway[:left/right]=lane isn't a good idea for the following reasons: 1. footway=lane is a contradiction, as a lane (part of a road/path) isn't a footway (separate path). 2. sidewalk=left/right/both and footway[:left/right]=lane would have two different syntaxes, which were confusing. 3. lane would be the only value which were a departure from the usual tag syntax where the value is variable and the key remains constant. Many thanks to the (unfortunately rather few) people who took part in the vote. Best regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting result - Pedestrian lane
Dear all, The voting on the proposal for a new key pedestrian_lane=* for lanes designated for pedestrians is over. 8 people voted for the proposal, 5 against it and 1 person abstained. This is an approval by 62%, which is below the required 75% majority. Therefore the proposal has been rejected. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pedestrian_lane The following reasons for opposing the proposal were given: - footway[:left/right]=lane should be used instead of the proposed pedestrian_lane=left/right/both. (mentioned twice) - More discussion is needed. (mentioned twice) - Disagreement with the definition of sidewalk=* being a raised or otherwise physically separated footpath at the side of a road. (mentioned once) In my opinion, footway[:left/right]=lane isn't a good idea for the following reasons: 1. footway=lane is a contradiction, as a lane (part of a road/path) isn't a footway (separate path). 2. sidewalk=left/right/both and footway[:left/right]=lane would have two different syntaxes, which were confusing. 3. lane would be the only value which were a departure from the usual tag syntax where the value is variable and the key remains constant. Many thanks to the (unfortunately rather few) people who took part in the vote. Best regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
