On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 21:35, Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de> wrote:
> On 17.09.20 02:35, Taskar Center wrote: > > This is yet another example why "sticking" the sidewalks onto the > > highway (as a tag) rather than mapping them as separate ways is > > appearing to be less and less practical. Please see our sidewalk schema > > proposal > > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sidewalk_schema> > > from several years ago. > > Your sidewalk proposal unfortunately doesn't really address the crucial > shortcoming of separately mapped sidewalks: The lack of a reliable > mechanism for figuring out which section of road a given sidewalk way > belongs to. > > I agree that we should be able to give sidewalks their own geometry, but > we _also_ need the relationship between sidewalk and road. So far, all > the proposals attempting to support the former end up sacrificing the > latter. > Was this meant to be one of the purposes of associated street relations? > > There have been some promising discussions recently around the > sidepath_of idea, but that's still just brainstorming. Until a practical > solution is found and actually used in the database, sidewalk mapping > will remain a choice between two options that are broken in different ways. > I hadn't heard this one. Do you have a link to the discussion? I would personally prefer sidewalk_of or walkway_of if we were to go this route though. Sidepath sounds like something that's branching to me. Both associated street and sidepath_of still have the issue of when you're allowed to jump from one to the other, kerbs can be stepped over by most, railing less so (they're often to keep pedestrians out of blindspots). It must be difficult to tell if a sidewalk is separated specifically because the transition from one to the other is more thoroughly blocked and not simply as an added level of detail with no more than the normal impediment to foot traffic. The only thing I've seen discussed that might work for this was in a talk about way and street areas. > > As for the main issue of the thread: I would welcome a clear definition > for the meaning of width. In my own mapping and when writing the > relevant code in OSM2World, I have counted sidewalks etc. as part of the > road's width if they are mapped as tags on the main way. But I would of > course change that if there finally was a documented and widely > agreed-upon recommendation. I don't care so much which one it is - but > we need one. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
