On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 23:01, John Willis via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> Is "foot:lanes" An established value?
There are only 32 uses according to Taginfo and the tag isn't mentioned in
the wiki. However, there are 4,450 uses of bicycle:lanes and that tag is
briefly mentioned
> On Oct 22, 2019, at 2:18 AM, Jan Michel wrote:
>
> foot:lanes = ||designated (allowing foot access to this lane)
Thanks for the tagging example! ^__^
have never tagged lanes before.
Is "foot:lanes" An established value?
Or is that what we are discussing?
Javbw
sent from a phone
> On 21. Oct 2019, at 21:34, Markus wrote:
>
>
> It isn't a nuance of one English dictionary.
+1
if there are nuances, I would see them between this shared lane for pedestrians
and motorvehicles and no footway marking at all (sidewalk=no), not between a
sidewalk and the
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 18:14, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>
> In general, I don't think the definition of OSM keys should
> automatically duplicate all nuances of the English dictionary,
> especially ones that many non-native speakers will be unaware of.
It isn't a nuance of one English dictionary. I've
On 21.10.19 13:02, John Willis via Tagging wrote:
We can all imagine a bus lane, a turn lane, a cycle lane, and whatever a "pedestrian
lane" might be in the road. It's part of the road. It's marked with a (painted) line
to separate one from the other. The lane feels like part of the road. The
On 20.10.19 20:52, Markus wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 19:52, Jan Michel wrote:
I don't see how a 2-3 cm high kerb provides any kind of safety for a
pedestrian.
Not much, but luckily most kerbs (at least those i came across) are
much higher (usually 10 cm and more). They are only lowered at
Am Mo., 21. Okt. 2019 um 18:15 Uhr schrieb Tobias Knerr :
> Me too. As I see it, the core of the question comes down to whether the
> OSM data model should put a pedestrian road section without a kerb in
> the same general category as one with a kerb, or whether these should be
> treated as
On 21.10.19 12:12, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> Though, in regards of software support, I my earlier suggestion is better,
> as no modification on existing software is necessary to understand that a
> sidewalk without kerb is still for pedestrians and used the same as a
> sidewalk, regardless of
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 14:29, Philip Barnes wrote:
> But the British English technical/legal term is footway, which has also
> found its way into OSM.
>
The Highway Code uses both pavement and footway. There's probably some
subtle legal
distinction.
>
> And sorry Paul, I cannot remember the
On 21/10/2019 14:14, Paul Allen wrote:
(for the kerb separated way, no idea about the marking separated way)
Me neither. I'm not sure we have them.
They do exist - I believe that
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172228211 (or one of the sections to
the north) is or was like that.
On Monday, 21 October 2019, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 08:23, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>
> >
> > while I am not, I’m pretty sure the British term is pavement, not sidewalk
>
>
>
> Yes. It's as idiotic as us Brits calling underpants "pants" because the
> sidewalk is paved
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 08:23, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> while I am not, I’m pretty sure the British term is pavement, not sidewalk
Yes. It's as idiotic as us Brits calling underpants "pants" because the
sidewalk is paved
but the road is also paved so both are pavements. But that's
Am Mo., 21. Okt. 2019 um 12:15 Uhr schrieb Tobias Zwick :
> Shoulders are a common feature on many roads. And the tagging for this is
> already established. Maybe a different way to tag kerb-less sidewalks thus
> would then be
>
> shoulder=right
> shoulder:right:access=foot
> (or access no and
> On Oct 21, 2019, at 3:40 PM, Mateusz Konieczny
> wrote:
>
> There is no kerb or other barrier at all, but still it's obviously a sidewalk.
I agree with you that this is is a sidewalk.
I spoke too quickly when I said that all sidewalks have kerbs. There is clear
delineation that there is
Shoulders are a common feature on many roads. And the tagging for this is
already established. Maybe a different way to tag kerb-less sidewalks thus
would then be
shoulder=right
shoulder:right:access=foot
(or access no and ...:foot=designated?)
shoulder:right:width=1
Though, in regards of
“Sidewalk” is North American English, but it’s used because the
British term is “pavement”, which is confusing due to its dual
meaning. As a North American I would expect it to be separated from
the road by a curb (kerb) or a strip of grass.
Oxford dictionaries definition, Pavement:
"1. British A
sent from a phone
> On 21. Oct 2019, at 08:51, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> I am curious about opinion of a native speaker
> of British English.
while I am not, I’m pretty sure the British term is pavement, not sidewalk (for
the kerb separated way, no idea about the marking separated way)
20 Oct 2019, 19:08 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 12:42, Tobias Zwick wrote:
>
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> sidewalk=right
>> sidewalk:right:kerb=no
>>
>
> I dislike using these tags for pedestrian lanes for the following
> reasons (sorry if i repeat myself):
>
> * It doesn't
+1 to this tagging scheme.
I strongly prefer new tags for additional
detail over new incompatible ones.
20 Oct 2019, 19:49 by j...@mueschelsoft.de:
> On 20.10.19 12:40, Tobias Zwick wrote:
>
>> I have seen this kind of sidewalk that is just a marked lane in Germany as
>> well, usually as part of
Am 20.10.2019 um 23:23 schrieb Clifford Snow:
I'm not familiar with the laws of the country the picture [1] listed
in the first post on this thread, but the diagonal yellow lines look
to me like a don't park here rather than a sidewalk. Even the one
pedestrian in the picture isn't walking the
> On Oct 21, 2019, at 2:08 AM, Markus wrote:
>
> * It doesn't make sense: if it doesn't have a kerb (or any other
> physical barrier) it isn't a sidewalk.
This is the most important information.
it should be tagged as a “footway lane” or “pedestrian lane” or similar.
Javbw
a "sidewalk
I think in bicycle-OSM we have kind of an tacitly agreed approach: bicycle
lanes (divided from motorised traffic by a painted line) are generally
mapped on the road way whereas separate parallel cycleways are tagged
either on the road way or as separate way, with the former often being the
first,
I'm not familiar with the laws of the country the picture [1] listed in the
first post on this thread, but the diagonal yellow lines look to me like a
don't park here rather than a sidewalk. Even the one pedestrian in the
picture isn't walking the diagonal yellow lines. Can someone confirm that
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 19:52, Jan Michel wrote:
>
> I also prefer this kind of tagging. I don't see a reason to invent a
> fully new tag for this - it is an area meant just for pedestrians just
> like a sidewalk. [...]
I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in Switzerland vehicles are
allowed to
On 20.10.19 12:40, Tobias Zwick wrote:
I have seen this kind of sidewalk that is just a marked lane in Germany as
well, usually as part of parking lots or larger company grounds.
How about:
sidewalk=right
sidewalk:right:kerb=no
sidewalk:right:surface=asphalt
I also prefer this kind of
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 12:24, Georg Feddern wrote:
>
> Why not in analogy to cycleway=track|lane|...
> sidewalk=track|lane|...
This would require a huge amount of retagging. (There are currently
over 1.5 millions uses of sidewalk=*.)
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 19:11, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> We
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 12:42, Tobias Zwick wrote:
>
> How about:
>
> sidewalk=right
> sidewalk:right:kerb=no
I dislike using these tags for pedestrian lanes for the following
reasons (sorry if i repeat myself):
* It doesn't make sense: if it doesn't have a kerb (or any other
physical barrier)
We have a widely used scheme for tagging cycle lanes/paths on the road way:
cycleway=lane|track with variants.
Extrapolating from that for the pedestrian "lane" seems obvious to me:
sidewalk=lane (plus variants).
For separate sidewalks there is
sidewalk=yes (plus variants)
Why invent something
I have seen this kind of sidewalk that is just a marked lane in Germany as
well, usually as part of parking lots or larger company grounds.
How about:
sidewalk=right
sidewalk:right:kerb=no
sidewalk:right:surface=asphalt
The most important thing is to tag whether there is a sidewalk or not.
Am 20.10.2019 um 11:24 schrieb Markus:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 23:02, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
+1, or e.g. sidewalk:right=lane
there are a few instances tagged like this:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/sidewalk%3Aright=lane
18 out of 30 are additionally tagged sidewalk=right. I
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 23:02, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> +1, or e.g. sidewalk:right=lane
> there are a few instances tagged like this:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/sidewalk%3Aright=lane
18 out of 30 are additionally tagged sidewalk=right. I think it's
better to keep "sidewalk"
> On Oct 20, 2019, at 4:44 AM, Markus wrote:
>
> However i think that a sidewalk requires a physical separation to the
> roadway
I agree with you, and I tag all separated standard sidewalks as “sidewalks” (iD
preset).
however, there are a lot of narrow roads in Japan where the side of the
sent from a phone
> On 19. Oct 2019, at 21:48, Markus wrote:
>
> The tag i used was
> pedestrian_lane=
+1, or e.g. sidewalk:right=lane
there are a few instances tagged like this:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/sidewalk%3Aright=lane
Cheers Martin
33 matches
Mail list logo
