Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Robert Skedgell]

On 26/01/2020 12:35, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Florimond Berthoux wrote:
>> How to map a continuous sidewalk or cycleway ?
> 
> A couple of ideas were posted in connection with the London cycle
> infrastructure database:
> 
> https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/issues/30
> https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/issues/16
> 
> Richard
> 

Possibly worth noting that this is what the London Borough of Waltham
Forest refer to as a blended "Copenhagen" crossing. Does the TfL data
identify these as distinct entities?

https://www.enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/blended-cophenhagen-crossings/

-- 
Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)

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

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Robert Skedgell]

On 24/01/2020 10:35, Peter Elderson wrote:
> highway=give_way would not map the situation, just the priority. Maybe
> it's just me, but I think highway=give_way is an unclear tag. Who gives
> way to who, in what direction? 

I imagine that is why the wiki lists direction=forward|backward as a
useful combination, as it makes it unambiguous.

-- 
Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)

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

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Florimond Berthoux]

We do now:
Le sam. 25 janv. 2020 à 23:51, Volker Schmidt  a écrit :

> Florimond,
>
> already in your otherwise interesting map that you presented in
> Heidelberg, you do not consider all categories:
> 1) sidewalk
>
(cycleway on a sidewalk ? there is no specified tag for that afaik)

2) cycleway
>
-> blue

3) combined foot-cycleway (as sidewalk)
>
-> light blue

4) segregated foot-cycleway (as sidewalk; with separate lanes for
> pedestrians and bicycles)
>
-> blue + one outline in green


> Volker
>

check https://www.cyclosm.org

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

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Richard Fairhurst]

Florimond Berthoux wrote:
> How to map a continuous sidewalk or cycleway ?

A couple of ideas were posted in connection with the London cycle
infrastructure database:

https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/issues/30
https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/issues/16

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Peter Elderson]

Florimond Berthoux :

> No, I'm not talking about cycling on a sidewalk (I don't know why you
> thought that ??), I discuss continuous sidewalk and continuous cycleway
> together because it's the same layout, the same problem.
>

Ok, my bad. Separate tagging for continuous sidewalk and continuous
cycleway.


> And I'm doing that because I'm interesting in cycling infrastructure more
> than others.
> For instance this is a typical dutch continuous sidewalk/cycleway
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.3608851685737=4.867902368825185=17=ru8z7_PBx5Ao2LU6TX2XfQ=photo=0.4098509000113021=0.620642840587665=0
>

I know the spot, and places like it. Cycleways in Nederland can have all
kinds of separation from the ways they run along, and indeed sometimes
(most often not) they are elevated. If there was no continuous sidewalk at
that spot, the continuity of the cycleway would not mean or implicate
anything. It just telss people to expect bicycles. Cycleways along roads
are often not discontinued for lower order crossing roads. There are no
rules about that. Traffic from the right have priority.
It is totally different from continuous foot pavement, which creates a
pedestrian area where traffic is allowed if necessary, but needs to give
way.
In the spot shown, I would not mark the cycleway as continuous,  because it
does not make any difference if the red colour paving is interrupted or
not, and also the kerb does not make a difference. I would mark the
sidewalk as continuous because that makes a real deifferance for traffic
and pedestrians.
Traffic form the lesser road has to give way to all other traffic when
leaving the area. So the cyclists profit from the continuous sidewalk.
Again, the kerb or elevation or lining or surface of the cycleway does not
matter. If there was no kerb, no elavation , and discontinued surface
colour, it would be exactly the same.

I don't know if that is the case only in Nederland. But I can tell you,
continuous cycleway will not give any  information other than that the
cycleway is there. Anything you might want to deduct from that (traffic
calming, access, prioryity) will need extra tagging. Assuming that certain
rules are implied would be wrong in Nederland. In contrast, continous
sidewalk is very common and very real here, and does imply rules.


> Anyhow I updated the page
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Continuous_Sidewalk
> continuous_sidewalk/continuous_cycleway=yes/no are now tags, so no more
> collision and can be used on the junction node or on the way.
>
__
> 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] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Volker Schmidt]

Florimond,

already in your otherwise interesting map that you presented in Heidelberg,
you do not consider all categories:
1) sidewalk
2) cycleway
3) combined foot-cycleway (as sidewalk)
4) segregated foot-cycleway (as sidewalk; with separate lanes for
pedestrians and bicycles)

Volker

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 23:32, Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, I'm not talking about cycling on a sidewalk (I don't know why you
> thought that ??), I discuss continuous sidewalk and continuous cycleway
> together because it's the same layout, the same problem.
> And I'm doing that because I'm interesting in cycling infrastructure more
> than others.
> For instance this is a typical dutch continuous sidewalk/cycleway
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.3608851685737=4.867902368825185=17=ru8z7_PBx5Ao2LU6TX2XfQ=photo=0.4098509000113021=0.620642840587665=0
>
> Anyhow I updated the page
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Continuous_Sidewalk
> continuous_sidewalk/continuous_cycleway=yes/no are now tags, so no more
> collision and can be used on the junction node or on the way.
>
> Le sam. 25 janv. 2020 à 18:36, Peter Elderson  a
> écrit :
>
>> Ah, I see. You are talking about cycling on the sidewalk. Indeed, very
>> unusual in Nederland. To me it's strange to tag continuous_sidewalk mainly
>> for cycling.
>>
>> You talk of junction=continuous_sidewalk, I see no reason to even
>> consider that.
>> If you have a cycleway, footway or footcycleway around a roundabout, it
>> still has crossings with the roads.which can and often will differ, so IMO
>> the crossing nodes would carry the attributes.
>>
>> Well, I have given my thoughts, good luck with the proposal!
>>
>> Best, Peter Elderson
>>
>
> --
> Florimond Berthoux
> ___
> 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] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Florimond Berthoux]

No, I'm not talking about cycling on a sidewalk (I don't know why you
thought that ??), I discuss continuous sidewalk and continuous cycleway
together because it's the same layout, the same problem.
And I'm doing that because I'm interesting in cycling infrastructure more
than others.
For instance this is a typical dutch continuous sidewalk/cycleway
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.3608851685737=4.867902368825185=17=ru8z7_PBx5Ao2LU6TX2XfQ=photo=0.4098509000113021=0.620642840587665=0

Anyhow I updated the page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Continuous_Sidewalk
continuous_sidewalk/continuous_cycleway=yes/no are now tags, so no more
collision and can be used on the junction node or on the way.

Le sam. 25 janv. 2020 à 18:36, Peter Elderson  a
écrit :

> Ah, I see. You are talking about cycling on the sidewalk. Indeed, very
> unusual in Nederland. To me it's strange to tag continuous_sidewalk mainly
> for cycling.
>
> You talk of junction=continuous_sidewalk, I see no reason to even consider
> that.
> If you have a cycleway, footway or footcycleway around a roundabout, it
> still has crossings with the roads.which can and often will differ, so IMO
> the crossing nodes would carry the attributes.
>
> Well, I have given my thoughts, good luck with the proposal!
>
> Best, Peter Elderson
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 25. Jan 2020, at 15:19, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> 
> Well, any crossing involves different ways crossing each other, and should be 
> considered from all angles involved. A way can't cross another way without 
> being crossed itself. 


the question is which way is interrupted and which goes through. Usually at 
pedestrian crossings, the pedestrians cross the road. Their way is cut away by 
the road. In this case it is inverted and the cars cross the pedestrian space.
The implications are that at the usual crossings, the pedestrians must play by 
the rules of the cars, while in the inverted case, the rules are those for 
pedestrian areas.


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

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Peter Elderson]

Ah, I see. You are talking about cycling on the sidewalk. Indeed, very
unusual in Nederland. To me it's strange to tag continuous_sidewalk mainly
for cycling.

You talk of junction=continuous_sidewalk, I see no reason to even consider
that.
If you have a cycleway, footway or footcycleway around a roundabout, it
still has crossings with the roads.which can and often will differ, so IMO
the crossing nodes would carry the attributes.

Well, I have given my thoughts, good luck with the proposal!

Best, Peter Elderson


Op za 25 jan. 2020 om 17:28 schreef Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com>:

>
>
> Le sam. 25 janv. 2020 à 15:19, Peter Elderson  a
> écrit :
>
>> Florimond Berthoux :
>>
>>> With a table the pedestrians have to cross the road, it is the opposite
>>> for the continuous sidewalk that's why I'm in favor to add a new value
>>>
>> traffic_calming=continuous_sidewalk
>>>
>>
>> Well, any crossing involves different ways crossing each other, and
>> should be considered from all angles involved. A way can't cross another
>> way without being crossed itself.
>>
>
> Crossing key is defined as such «This tag is used for more accurately
> describing specific types of pedestrian crossings across roads»
> Continuous sidewalk is a sidewalk, so pedestrian don't cross a road but a
> sidewalk, so crossing key cannot be applied.
>
>
>> Give ways:
>>> If there is traffic sign or painting you can add a give way tag.
>>> If there is none, you cannot add a give way, or you would interpret the
>>> law which is not on the ground.
>>>
>>> Crossing:
>>> I thought of using crossing key but there are issues:
>>> - the tag is only for pedestrians crossing the road, where as a
>>> continuous sidewalk is a sidewalk cross by cars (though we could change the
>>> definition of crossing to embrace more situations)
>>>
>>
>> I would not even consider that a change: as said above,  a way can't
>> cross another way without being crossed by the other way.
>>
>>
>>> - continuous cycleways exist too (and it’s the main reason I’d like to
>>> tag them)
>>>
>>
>> In Nederland, cycleways tend to be continuous by design, but that does
>> not imply anything. All the regular traffic rules apply. Only continuous
>> pedestrian surface (including elevation, pavement, lining) is significant.
>> It is in effect a pedestrian area or living street, where other traffic is
>> tolerated but has no rights. Also, traffic coming from an area like that
>> has no priority whatsoever. Movements of vehicles on the pavement are
>> considered "special manoeuvres" and the driver has to give way to all
>> others.
>>
>
> Yes in Netherland you don't know what crossing a kurb every 50m on bicycle
> means, but there is a difference of having the cycleway going down to join
> the level of the road and crossing it than having the cycleway staying
> higher than the road on a cycleway.
> not continuous :
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.10055=5.0864573=18.24231017301564=ZoLEx4v54zKtpXwEAiT_nw=photo
> 5m further continuous :
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.1002844=5.0863681=18.24231017301564=_hSpfQK3eiU4HbKEEFePIw=photo
>
> - it collides with continuous sidewalk, you may have continuous sidewalk
>>> and a crossing, it’s not a normal case but I have at least one example in
>>> Paris where zebras were added on a continuous sidewalk, hence the need for
>>> another tag.
>>>
>>
>> This would just be extra lining to emphasize priority for pedestrians. It
>> looks like a zebra but It would still be a "continuous_sidewalk" crossing.
>> Calling it a zebra crossing while it is continuous sidewalk would send the
>> wrong message.
>>
>
> No, I want to tag both features, I not here to interpret the world, the
> law or else, I just want to say there is a continuous sidewalk with zebra
> on it.
>
>
>> For the moment my concern is about would it be possible to have tag
>>> collision with junction.
>>> And I just realize that a cycleway can be a junction=roundabout, and
>>> being continuous at the intersection with roads in and out of the
>>> roundabout.
>>>
>>
>> That is very common around here for cycleways around a roundabout, but it
>> doesn't mean anything unless traffic signs (stop signs, give_way signs or
>> shark's teeth) are present. Pedestrian roundabouts, .i.e. continous sidwalk
>> around a roundabout, I have never seen that, but if present, it would imply
>> absolute priority for pedestrians and nothing for cyclists!
>>
>>
>>> So I guess we have to create a key.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't see how that follows from your arguments!
>> A node on the way where it crosses the middle line of the continuous
>> pavement (whether drawn as a way or not) tagged with either
>> traffic_calming=continous_sidewalk or crossing=continuous_sidewalk) covers
>> all cases mentioned, I think. Just an extra value.
>>
>> I think that would be enough for basic rendering, routing and
>> traffic-oriented maps.
>>
>
> You'll not be able to tag a roundabout on 

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Florimond Berthoux]

Le sam. 25 janv. 2020 à 15:19, Peter Elderson  a
écrit :

> Florimond Berthoux :
>
>> With a table the pedestrians have to cross the road, it is the opposite
>> for the continuous sidewalk that's why I'm in favor to add a new value
>>
> traffic_calming=continuous_sidewalk
>>
>
> Well, any crossing involves different ways crossing each other, and should
> be considered from all angles involved. A way can't cross another way
> without being crossed itself.
>

Crossing key is defined as such «This tag is used for more accurately
describing specific types of pedestrian crossings across roads»
Continuous sidewalk is a sidewalk, so pedestrian don't cross a road but a
sidewalk, so crossing key cannot be applied.


> Give ways:
>> If there is traffic sign or painting you can add a give way tag.
>> If there is none, you cannot add a give way, or you would interpret the
>> law which is not on the ground.
>>
>> Crossing:
>> I thought of using crossing key but there are issues:
>> - the tag is only for pedestrians crossing the road, where as a
>> continuous sidewalk is a sidewalk cross by cars (though we could change the
>> definition of crossing to embrace more situations)
>>
>
> I would not even consider that a change: as said above,  a way can't cross
> another way without being crossed by the other way.
>
>
>> - continuous cycleways exist too (and it’s the main reason I’d like to
>> tag them)
>>
>
> In Nederland, cycleways tend to be continuous by design, but that does not
> imply anything. All the regular traffic rules apply. Only continuous
> pedestrian surface (including elevation, pavement, lining) is significant.
> It is in effect a pedestrian area or living street, where other traffic is
> tolerated but has no rights. Also, traffic coming from an area like that
> has no priority whatsoever. Movements of vehicles on the pavement are
> considered "special manoeuvres" and the driver has to give way to all
> others.
>

Yes in Netherland you don't know what crossing a kurb every 50m on bicycle
means, but there is a difference of having the cycleway going down to join
the level of the road and crossing it than having the cycleway staying
higher than the road on a cycleway.
not continuous :
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.10055=5.0864573=18.24231017301564=ZoLEx4v54zKtpXwEAiT_nw=photo
5m further continuous :
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.1002844=5.0863681=18.24231017301564=_hSpfQK3eiU4HbKEEFePIw=photo

- it collides with continuous sidewalk, you may have continuous sidewalk
>> and a crossing, it’s not a normal case but I have at least one example in
>> Paris where zebras were added on a continuous sidewalk, hence the need for
>> another tag.
>>
>
> This would just be extra lining to emphasize priority for pedestrians. It
> looks like a zebra but It would still be a "continuous_sidewalk" crossing.
> Calling it a zebra crossing while it is continuous sidewalk would send the
> wrong message.
>

No, I want to tag both features, I not here to interpret the world, the law
or else, I just want to say there is a continuous sidewalk with zebra on it.


> For the moment my concern is about would it be possible to have tag
>> collision with junction.
>> And I just realize that a cycleway can be a junction=roundabout, and
>> being continuous at the intersection with roads in and out of the
>> roundabout.
>>
>
> That is very common around here for cycleways around a roundabout, but it
> doesn't mean anything unless traffic signs (stop signs, give_way signs or
> shark's teeth) are present. Pedestrian roundabouts, .i.e. continous sidwalk
> around a roundabout, I have never seen that, but if present, it would imply
> absolute priority for pedestrians and nothing for cyclists!
>
>
>> So I guess we have to create a key.
>>
>>
> I don't see how that follows from your arguments!
> A node on the way where it crosses the middle line of the continuous
> pavement (whether drawn as a way or not) tagged with either
> traffic_calming=continous_sidewalk or crossing=continuous_sidewalk) covers
> all cases mentioned, I think. Just an extra value.
>
> I think that would be enough for basic rendering, routing and
> traffic-oriented maps.
>

You'll not be able to tag a roundabout on the ways of a cycleway
(junction=roundabout) and tag on the way of the continuous cycleway
(junction=continuous_sidewalk) since it already have junction=roundabout,
two feature on the same tag -> collision.

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

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Peter Elderson]

Florimond Berthoux :

> With a table the pedestrians have to cross the road, it is the opposite
> for the continuous sidewalk that's why I'm in favor to add a new value
>
traffic_calming=continuous_sidewalk
>

Well, any crossing involves different ways crossing each other, and should
be considered from all angles involved. A way can't cross another way
without being crossed itself.


> Give ways:
> If there is traffic sign or painting you can add a give way tag.
> If there is none, you cannot add a give way, or you would interpret the
> law which is not on the ground.
>
> Crossing:
> I thought of using crossing key but there are issues:
> - the tag is only for pedestrians crossing the road, where as a continuous
> sidewalk is a sidewalk cross by cars (though we could change the definition
> of crossing to embrace more situations)
>

I would not even consider that a change: as said above,  a way can't cross
another way without being crossed by the other way.


> - continuous cycleways exist too (and it’s the main reason I’d like to tag
> them)
>

In Nederland, cycleways tend to be continuous by design, but that does not
imply anything. All the regular traffic rules apply. Only continuous
pedestrian surface (including elevation, pavement, lining) is significant.
It is in effect a pedestrian area or living street, where other traffic is
tolerated but has no rights. Also, traffic coming from an area like that
has no priority whatsoever. Movements of vehicles on the pavement are
considered "special manoeuvres" and the driver has to give way to all
others.


> - it collides with continuous sidewalk, you may have continuous sidewalk
> and a crossing, it’s not a normal case but I have at least one example in
> Paris where zebras were added on a continuous sidewalk, hence the need for
> another tag.
>

This would just be extra lining to emphasize priority for pedestrians. It
looks like a zebra but It would still be a "continuous_sidewalk" crossing.
Calling it a zebra crossing while it is continuous sidewalk would send the
wrong message.

For the moment my concern is about would it be possible to have tag
> collision with junction.
> And I just realize that a cycleway can be a junction=roundabout, and being
> continuous at the intersection with roads in and out of the roundabout.
>

That is very common around here for cycleways around a roundabout, but it
doesn't mean anything unless traffic signs (stop signs, give_way signs or
shark's teeth) are present. Pedestrian roundabouts, .i.e. continous sidwalk
around a roundabout, I have never seen that, but if present, it would imply
absolute priority for pedestrians and nothing for cyclists!


> So I guess we have to create a key.
>
>
I don't see how that follows from your arguments!
A node on the way where it crosses the middle line of the continuous
pavement (whether drawn as a way or not) tagged with either
traffic_calming=continous_sidewalk or crossing=continuous_sidewalk) covers
all cases mentioned, I think. Just an extra value.

I think that would be enough for basic rendering, routing and
traffic-oriented maps.


> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Florimond Berthoux
> ___
> 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] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Volker Schmidt]

Give ways:
> If there is traffic sign or painting you can add a give way tag.
> If there is none, you cannot add a give way, or you would interpret the
> law which is not on the ground.
>

We have many situations of legal restrictions that we express by tagging,
even though there are no explicit signs.
Various kinds of implicit speed limits spring to mind.
I see no good reason against tagging implicit (no-sign) give-ways with
explicit tags in OSM.
To the contrary, it would be odd to define a specific value of a crossing
or sidewalk tag to imply a give_way at a nearby road crossing.

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

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Florimond Berthoux]

What are the features of a continuous sidewalk ?
The main feature is to have a... continuous sidewalk, which means the
layout of the sidewalk is the same before, at the junction and after. If
you look only at the sidewalk you would not see any difference in surface
or height. (At least for the perfect case.)
A continuous sidewalk is more comfort and secure for pedestrians (and
cyclists) since there is no kurbs to cross and cars have to go slower.
And bind with that you can have legal implications like right of way for
pedestrian, give way for car going on the main road, etc.
The law cannot be tagged since it's not on the ground, but the layout of a
continuous sidewalk can be.

Besides that, In the point of view of a car drivers you have (most of the
time) a traffic calming it's almost like a table, though the ramp can vary
a lot from only a small kerb
here
http://www.gablenberger-klaus.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/K-Spielstra%C3%9Fe-1.jpg
to a real ramp
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo=vrI5-QaNkUDqSw5uaCWXKA=53.07202360058028=8.790521908123765=17=0.5058547386437018=0.589992689065802=0
So traffic calming is not always the case.
With a table the pedestrians have to cross the road, it is the opposite for
the continuous sidewalk that's why I'm in favor to add a new value
traffic_calming=continuous_sidewalk

Give ways:
If there is traffic sign or painting you can add a give way tag.
If there is none, you cannot add a give way, or you would interpret the law
which is not on the ground.

Crossing:
I thought of using crossing key but there are issues:
- the tag is only for pedestrians crossing the road, where as a continuous
sidewalk is a sidewalk cross by cars (though we could change the definition
of crossing to embrace more situations)
- continuous cycleways exist too (and it’s the main reason I’d like to tag
them)
- it collides with continuous sidewalk, you may have continuous sidewalk
and a crossing, it’s not a normal case but I have at least one example in
Paris where zebras were added on a continuous sidewalk, hence the need for
another tag.

For the moment my concern is about would it be possible to have tag
collision with junction.
And I just realize that a cycleway can be a junction=roundabout, and being
continuous at the intersection with roads in and out of the roundabout.
So I guess we have to create a key.


Le ven. 24 janv. 2020 à 10:48, Marc Gemis  a écrit :

> I made a quick sketch:
>
> https://photos.smugmug.com/OSM/Screenshots/Screenshots-1/i-w92ZnDZ/0/90e60837/X4/Bezuidenhoutseweg%20-%20Google%20Maps-X4.png
> Of course, this info is then only available for the cars following the
> blue road. Cycling navigation along de Bezuidenhoutseweg will not be
> able to take this info into account. If you want that, you will have
> to draw the cycleway as a separate OSM way.
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:37 AM Marc Gemis  wrote:
> >
> > Add a node where the way, which represents the road for the cars,
> > crosses the cycleway. There does not have to be a way representing the
> > cycleway. We do the same for zebra crossings for pedestrians all the
> > time. We add the node where the path that the pedestrians have to
> > follow crosses the road for the cars.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > m.
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:49 AM Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Op vr 24 jan. 2020 om 07:38 schreef Marc Gemis :
> > >>
> > >> could this be solved with highway=crossing and a new, dedicated value
> > >> for crossing?
> > >> And you could map the kerbs before and after that crossing.
> > >
> > >
> > > (How) would this work where sidewalks are not mapped as separate ways
> but with sidewalk=yes?
> > >
> > > Best, Peter Elderson
> > > ___
> > > Tagging mailing list
> > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Hubert87]

Hallo Florimon,

could you eleborate the differnce between your proposal as opposed to
using "traffic_calming=hump" (you mention "traffic_calming=table" on the
wiki page) in conjunction with "highway=crossing" like on this node:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1962458951
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/vrI5-QaNkUDqSw5uaCWXKA

or as a stand alone node when cycleway and sidewalk are mapped as part
of the "raod".

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1962458953
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/M5CsP1IVJCCNLUvOsEnbQA

Are there any implizit properties, like rigth of way, assoziated with
that tag?

Do you plan to keep the values open? For example adding
"continuous_Path", "continuous_Footway".
Should the postfixes be from the highway=* family?

Also keep in mind that this situation can be found in the middle of
nowhere, e.g. when old railroad tracks are convered to cycle paths.

Lastly, I'd rather see this as new values for traffic_calming instead of
junction.

Yours
hubert87

Am 23.01.2020 um 21:09 schrieb Florimond Berthoux:

Hello,

How to map a continuous sidewalk or cycleway ?
In order to solve this question I created a wiki page to sum up my
first try to tag this:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Continuous_Sidewalk

The main idea is to use the tag:
junction=continuous_sidewalk|continuous_cycleway
on node or ways of a feature.

Helpful comments are welcome.

--
Florimond Berthoux

___
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] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Marc Gemis]

> So for pedestrians, you would add a node on the blue line where it crosses 
> the centerline of the sidewalk tagged highway=crossing, 
> crossing=?

yes (or combine the crossing for pedestrians and cyclists into one node)

and you can add a highway=give_way (or stop) near the node for the
kerb as well to indicate that you have to give way to the traffic on
the Bezuidenhoutseweg.

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

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Peter Elderson]

highway=give_way would not map the situation, just the priority. Maybe it's
just me, but I think highway=give_way is an unclear tag. Who gives way to
who, in what direction?

I think it is better to tag it as a type of crossing. Can be rendered, can
be routed.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op vr 24 jan. 2020 om 11:03 schreef Volker Schmidt :

>
>
>
> In Nederland, if traffic has to cross a sidewalk to get onto a road, it
>> must give way to all other traffic when leaving the sidewalk. In effect,
>> this cancels the priority to the right. rule.That makes it different from a
>> zebra crossing, which does give priority to pedestrians, but does not
>> cancel other priority rules.
>>
> This means in effect that here is a "give-way"  situation, just no sign.
> Map it as highway=give_way.
> The wiki states " The highway
> =give_way tag is used to
> map points at which a traffic sign or marking instructs traffic travelling
> ..."
> you have some kind of marking in the form of the crossing sidewalk.
> The only problem is that you may have to put a lot of these nodes on the
> map.
>
> In that context a question (my ignorance): are there any routers that take
> into account how often you have to give way (wait) when selecting the best
> route?
> ___
> 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] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Volker Schmidt]

In Nederland, if traffic has to cross a sidewalk to get onto a road, it
> must give way to all other traffic when leaving the sidewalk. In effect,
> this cancels the priority to the right. rule.That makes it different from a
> zebra crossing, which does give priority to pedestrians, but does not
> cancel other priority rules.
>
This means in effect that here is a "give-way"  situation, just no sign.
Map it as highway=give_way.
The wiki states " The highway
=give_way tag is used to
map points at which a traffic sign or marking instructs traffic travelling
..."
you have some kind of marking in the form of the crossing sidewalk.
The only problem is that you may have to put a lot of these nodes on the
map.

In that context a question (my ignorance): are there any routers that take
into account how often you have to give way (wait) when selecting the best
route?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Peter Elderson]

Same thing in Nederland.
Best,  Peter Elderson


Op vr 24 jan. 2020 om 10:55 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:

> In Germany, this is how the beginning / end of living streets work:
>
> http://www.gablenberger-klaus.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/K-Spielstra%C3%9Fe-1.jpg
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Drosselweg.JPG
>
> 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] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Peter Elderson]

So for pedestrians, you would add a node on the blue line where it crosses
the centerline of the sidewalk tagged highway=crossing,
crossing=?

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 24 jan. 2020 om 10:48 schreef Marc Gemis :

> I made a quick sketch:
>
> https://photos.smugmug.com/OSM/Screenshots/Screenshots-1/i-w92ZnDZ/0/90e60837/X4/Bezuidenhoutseweg%20-%20Google%20Maps-X4.png
> Of course, this info is then only available for the cars following the
> blue road. Cycling navigation along de Bezuidenhoutseweg will not be
> able to take this info into account. If you want that, you will have
> to draw the cycleway as a separate OSM way.
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:37 AM Marc Gemis  wrote:
> >
> > Add a node where the way, which represents the road for the cars,
> > crosses the cycleway. There does not have to be a way representing the
> > cycleway. We do the same for zebra crossings for pedestrians all the
> > time. We add the node where the path that the pedestrians have to
> > follow crosses the road for the cars.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > m.
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:49 AM Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Op vr 24 jan. 2020 om 07:38 schreef Marc Gemis :
> > >>
> > >> could this be solved with highway=crossing and a new, dedicated value
> > >> for crossing?
> > >> And you could map the kerbs before and after that crossing.
> > >
> > >
> > > (How) would this work where sidewalks are not mapped as separate ways
> but with sidewalk=yes?
> > >
> > > Best, Peter Elderson
> > > ___
> > > Tagging mailing list
> > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

In Germany, this is how the beginning / end of living streets work:
http://www.gablenberger-klaus.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/K-Spielstra%C3%9Fe-1.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Drosselweg.JPG

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

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Marc Gemis]

I made a quick sketch:
https://photos.smugmug.com/OSM/Screenshots/Screenshots-1/i-w92ZnDZ/0/90e60837/X4/Bezuidenhoutseweg%20-%20Google%20Maps-X4.png
Of course, this info is then only available for the cars following the
blue road. Cycling navigation along de Bezuidenhoutseweg will not be
able to take this info into account. If you want that, you will have
to draw the cycleway as a separate OSM way.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:37 AM Marc Gemis  wrote:
>
> Add a node where the way, which represents the road for the cars,
> crosses the cycleway. There does not have to be a way representing the
> cycleway. We do the same for zebra crossings for pedestrians all the
> time. We add the node where the path that the pedestrians have to
> follow crosses the road for the cars.
>
> regards
>
> m.
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:49 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
> >
> > Op vr 24 jan. 2020 om 07:38 schreef Marc Gemis :
> >>
> >> could this be solved with highway=crossing and a new, dedicated value
> >> for crossing?
> >> And you could map the kerbs before and after that crossing.
> >
> >
> > (How) would this work where sidewalks are not mapped as separate ways but 
> > with sidewalk=yes?
> >
> > Best, Peter Elderson
> > ___
> > 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] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Marc Gemis]

Add a node where the way, which represents the road for the cars,
crosses the cycleway. There does not have to be a way representing the
cycleway. We do the same for zebra crossings for pedestrians all the
time. We add the node where the path that the pedestrians have to
follow crosses the road for the cars.

regards

m.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:49 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> Op vr 24 jan. 2020 om 07:38 schreef Marc Gemis :
>>
>> could this be solved with highway=crossing and a new, dedicated value
>> for crossing?
>> And you could map the kerbs before and after that crossing.
>
>
> (How) would this work where sidewalks are not mapped as separate ways but 
> with sidewalk=yes?
>
> Best, Peter Elderson
> ___
> 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] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Peter Elderson]

"for instance in France a car driver crossing a sidewalk must give way

> to others" says the wiki page. Presumably this is a different legal
> case than at a crosswalk in France.
>

In Nederland, if traffic has to cross a sidewalk to get onto a road, it
must give way to all other traffic when leaving the sidewalk. In effect,
this cancels the priority to the right. rule.That makes it different from a
zebra crossing, which does give priority to pedestrians, but does not
cancel other priority rules.

___
> 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] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Peter Elderson]

Op vr 24 jan. 2020 om 07:38 schreef Marc Gemis :

> could this be solved with highway=crossing and a new, dedicated value
> for crossing?
> And you could map the kerbs before and after that crossing.
>

(How) would this work where sidewalks are not mapped as separate ways but
with sidewalk=yes?

Best, Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Marc Gemis]

could this be solved with highway=crossing and a new, dedicated value
for crossing?
And you could map the kerbs before and after that crossing.

regards

m

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:29 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> YM like here? 
> https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0817214,4.3213884,3a,48.3y,87.48h,90.51t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sb8Aiyn4YOsRoPIQEZWIe4w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Db8Aiyn4YOsRoPIQEZWIe4w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D153.47363%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl=0
>
> Traffic from the right has to cross the continuous pedestrian pavement. In 
> Nederland, pedestrians have legal priority here, comparable to a car exit 
> over a sidewalk. It is called "exit-construction".
>
> I pass many of these every day (the street I live in exits like that). 
> https://www.google.nl/maps/@51.9653872,4.6089884,3a,75y,66h,76.98t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sd-J60SxVJrAWf3fp1_x-qg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i47?hl=nl=0
>
> If priority is deemed important enough for mapping, a mapping solution is 
> needed. We had some discussion on this, but no solution was found.
>
> Best, Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op do 23 jan. 2020 om 21:11 schreef Florimond Berthoux 
> :
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> How to map a continuous sidewalk or cycleway ?
>> In order to solve this question I created a wiki page to sum up my first try 
>> to tag this:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Continuous_Sidewalk
>>
>> The main idea is to use the tag:
>> junction=continuous_sidewalk|continuous_cycleway
>> on node or ways of a feature.
>>
>> Helpful comments are welcome.
>>
>> --
>> Florimond Berthoux
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Peter Elderson]

YM like here?
https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0817214,4.3213884,3a,48.3y,87.48h,90.51t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sb8Aiyn4YOsRoPIQEZWIe4w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Db8Aiyn4YOsRoPIQEZWIe4w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D153.47363%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl=0


Traffic from the right has to cross the continuous pedestrian pavement. In
Nederland, pedestrians have legal priority here, comparable to a car exit
over a sidewalk. It is called "exit-construction".

I pass many of these every day (the street I live in exits like that).
https://www.google.nl/maps/@51.9653872,4.6089884,3a,75y,66h,76.98t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sd-J60SxVJrAWf3fp1_x-qg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i47?hl=nl=0

If priority is deemed important enough for mapping, a mapping solution is
needed. We had some discussion on this, but no solution was found.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op do 23 jan. 2020 om 21:11 schreef Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com>:

> Hello,
>
> How to map a continuous sidewalk or cycleway ?
> In order to solve this question I created a wiki page to sum up my first
> try to tag this:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Continuous_Sidewalk
>
> The main idea is to use the tag:
> junction=continuous_sidewalk|continuous_cycleway
> on node or ways of a feature.
>
> Helpful comments are welcome.
>
> --
> Florimond Berthoux
> ___
> 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] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Nick Bolten]

Hi Florimand!

This is an interesting situation. Would it be possible to draw an overhead
diagram of the situation in question? Also, is this a tag that could
potentially go through the proposal process? It isn't in taginfo I'd be
happy to help any way I can.

Best,

Nick


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 12:11 PM Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> How to map a continuous sidewalk or cycleway ?
> In order to solve this question I created a wiki page to sum up my first
> try to tag this:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Continuous_Sidewalk
>
> The main idea is to use the tag:
> junction=continuous_sidewalk|continuous_cycleway
> on node or ways of a feature.
>
> Helpful comments are welcome.
>
> --
> Florimond Berthoux
> ___
> 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] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 17:05, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 21:11, Florimond Berthoux 
>  wrote:
>> How to map a continuous sidewalk or cycleway ?
>> In order to solve this question I created a wiki page to sum up my first try 
>> to tag this:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Continuous_Sidewalk
>>
>> The main idea is to use the tag:
>> junction=continuous_sidewalk|continuous_cycleway
>> on node or ways of a feature.
>>
>> Helpful comments are welcome.
>
> How is this legally and physically different form this situation:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/203142300
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/B9kqmuGy9C2qp0O86oQy5Q
> ?

"for instance in France a car driver crossing a sidewalk must give way
to others" says the wiki page. Presumably this is a different legal
case than at a crosswalk in France.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

[Volker Schmidt]

How is this legally and physically different form this situation:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/203142300
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/B9kqmuGy9C2qp0O86oQy5Q
?

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 21:11, Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> How to map a continuous sidewalk or cycleway ?
> In order to solve this question I created a wiki page to sum up my first
> try to tag this:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Continuous_Sidewalk
>
> The main idea is to use the tag:
> junction=continuous_sidewalk|continuous_cycleway
> on node or ways of a feature.
>
> Helpful comments are welcome.
>
> --
> Florimond Berthoux
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging