Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: there is a kind of informal guideline that states you shouldn't use relations for things that can be expressed with a tag (e.g. relations like all streets of type x in a country b should be omitted because you don't gain anything more than is already in the db). Redundancy (like repeating the name on the parts) is more stable than a relation (also because relations are not handled very well by some editing programs, and the concept seems more complex for new mappers than simple tags are). OSM is likely not a clean DB model in your sense, at least it prefers redundancy and transparency over complexity and formal simplicity. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk I think the name tag should stay on the street way(s) but you can still use a relation to group all the pieces of street, sidewalk, etc. together. The street or associatedStreet relations could be used for this purpose. The associatedStreet relation was only intended for linking buildings to roads for addressing purposes but the street relation is for linking anything to a road. Both have been used with a role of sidewalk although this is (currently) undocumented. The relations would be a convenient aid for data consumers to tie things together. If relations are as unstable as you think then it still won't matter because the absence of a relation, or a partial relation, doesn't say anything. It's only the presence of a relation which adds meaning. - Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
pmailkeey . schrieb: I've always considered OSM to be two maps - a geographic and a routing. And actually, when you look deeper, both is wrong. It's first and foremost a database of geographic information, out of which both a map (of various styles) and a routing graph can be constructed - and probably even more than that. KaiRo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
Roland Olbricht schrieb: our current pedestrian routers often don't give street names, but instead only instructions like look for the line on the map. To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately mapped footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name. The only correct way to put that into a clean DB model would be to create a relation that has the name on it *once* and has all pieces as members to which the name applies, including all pieces of street, sidewalk, etc. Now that is considered impractical by most people due to the editing strain (we know how likely people already mess up relations right now). Also, note that what you propose needs actual change of the current renderers as they do not at this time ignore the multiple names but instead make maps look really ugly (well, most separately mapped sidewalks make the map look ugly in current renderers). KaiRo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
2015-04-27 16:43 GMT+02:00 Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at: The only correct way to put that into a clean DB model would be to create a relation that has the name on it *once* and has all pieces as members to which the name applies, including all pieces of street, sidewalk, etc. there is a kind of informal guideline that states you shouldn't use relations for things that can be expressed with a tag (e.g. relations like all streets of type x in a country b should be omitted because you don't gain anything more than is already in the db). Redundancy (like repeating the name on the parts) is more stable than a relation (also because relations are not handled very well by some editing programs, and the concept seems more complex for new mappers than simple tags are). OSM is likely not a clean DB model in your sense, at least it prefers redundancy and transparency over complexity and formal simplicity. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
Another possibility is somewhat radical: - Non-routing or decorative ways for sidepaths. The current highway tags are quite good for routing a pedestrian or cyclist from intersection to intersection, and thus over any reasonable distance. However there's a desire for what amounts to drawing pretty lines on the map: modelling the details of the sidewalks and sidepaths. In suburban areas that often means a winding sidewalk next to a major road. In many places the definition is fuzzy, as there are all variants from fully separated to right up at the curb. Maybe splitting routing tags (how it connects) from rendering (how it looks) has merit. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
On 25/04/15 17:22, pmailkeey . wrote: First point is the definition of sidewalk as such they should never be mapped as separate routes but tags for such added to the highway. If there is no direct access from the footway to the carriageway, it is not a sidewalk. The bottom line is that this only applied while are mapping was only at a macro level. There has been a discussion about an import of building details in New Zealand and when you look at the underlying detail it is substantial micro mapping. The imagery that goes with it provides a VERY high level of detail, and when I first looked at it I though that the road outlines looked nice, however what I was seeing was all of the footpath detail! Now if all of the buildings are displayed on the map, why would one not map the footpath elements. In this case there would seem to be grass verges isolating the footpath from the actual roadway so technically 'no direct access' ;) At a lower scale, one only has space to display a single line with tags. additional detail such as the actual shape of the road, and additional details such as verges, footpaths and the like has to be consolidated onto the single way. At high resolution we see the buildings, footpaths and grass areas ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
On 25 April 2015 at 18:22, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: Another possibility is somewhat radical: - Non-routing or decorative ways for sidepaths. Maybe splitting routing tags (how it connects) from rendering (how it looks) has merit. I've always considered OSM to be two maps - a geographic and a routing. While an underlying routing line performs the routing function, an area (highway residential) covers the actual reality. The joint between the two can be a bit rough though. Having recently discovered area highway footway - I'm filling in pavements/sidewalks locally now a bit as well. -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Sidewalks
Dear all, our current pedestrian routers often don't give street names, but instead only instructions like look for the line on the map. To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately mapped footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name. The suggestion had been widely discussed with the German community. Finally we found the following approach: Keep separation rules as already established: A sidewalk (or bike lane) shall be mapped as a separate way only if a pedestrian cannot cross the car lanes at any point, i.e. there are fences or grass strip between footway and the car lanes. Change the tagging suggestion for separated sidewalks and bike lanes: - Sidewalks should carry highway=footway + footway=sidewalk + name=Name of the Street (already in widespread use) - Bike lanes should carry highway=cycleway + cycleway=sidewalk + name=Name of the Street (similar problem) Currently, both the suggestion of footway=sidewalk (similar for cycling) and copying the name is not suggested consistenly in the wiki. Are there any objections to clean-up the wiki with that regard? Side effects on other tools are almost uniformly positive: - Having the name multiple times on the various chunks of a street is a standard OSM policy. - Renderers could handle abundant name tags by ignoring names on ways tagged with footway/cycleway=sidewalk - Routing engines actually can improve by having the name of the road - Quality assurance tools would also profit by having more hints for checking Best regards, Roland ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
On 25.04.2015 11:29, wrote Roland Olbricht: A sidewalk (or bike lane) shall be mapped as a separate way only if a pedestrian cannot cross the car lanes at any point, i.e. there are fences or grass strip between footway and the car lanes. Uh, the example in the other thread was a fence. Grass strips are easily crossable for most pedestrians. Given the number of problems that arise from separately mapping sidewalks, we should only do it if strictly necessary. That is not the case with most grass strips, especially narrow ones of uniform length. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
I agree with suggesting adding names to sidewalks. I'm not sure about only mapping sidewalks that are separated from the road. I agree it has some logic to it, but what about mapping sidewalk width, surface, markings on the ground for the blind, and all those attributes a sidewalk can have? Tagging that on the road makes an even bigger mess of tags. Janko sub, 25. tra 2015. 11:30 Roland Olbricht olbri...@mentzdv.de je napisao: Dear all, our current pedestrian routers often don't give street names, but instead only instructions like look for the line on the map. To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately mapped footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name. The suggestion had been widely discussed with the German community. Finally we found the following approach: Keep separation rules as already established: A sidewalk (or bike lane) shall be mapped as a separate way only if a pedestrian cannot cross the car lanes at any point, i.e. there are fences or grass strip between footway and the car lanes. Change the tagging suggestion for separated sidewalks and bike lanes: - Sidewalks should carry highway=footway + footway=sidewalk + name=Name of the Street (already in widespread use) - Bike lanes should carry highway=cycleway + cycleway=sidewalk + name=Name of the Street (similar problem) Currently, both the suggestion of footway=sidewalk (similar for cycling) and copying the name is not suggested consistenly in the wiki. Are there any objections to clean-up the wiki with that regard? Side effects on other tools are almost uniformly positive: - Having the name multiple times on the various chunks of a street is a standard OSM policy. - Renderers could handle abundant name tags by ignoring names on ways tagged with footway/cycleway=sidewalk - Routing engines actually can improve by having the name of the road - Quality assurance tools would also profit by having more hints for checking Best regards, Roland ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Roland Olbricht olbri...@mentzdv.de wrote:
Dear all,
our current pedestrian routers often don't give street names, but instead
only instructions like look for the line on the map.
To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately mapped
footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name.
Why do that instead of just adding a single tag to the road?
Keep separation rules as already established:
Can you explain the benefit of this vs a single tag on the way such as
sidewalk=yes or sidewalk={left|right}?
- Serge
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
As somebody that has mapped a fair amount of sidewalks as separate ways (for good reasons) I'm rather split on the issue (and as a tendency against adding names to objects that don't actually have them). The adding a tag to the street in question is all fine and dandy, if - it is actually a classical sidewalk with just a kerb or a thin strip of grass, - you don't need to model a route over the sidewalk or are only interested in automatic routing, - you are not adding extra tags for surface, width etc. In reality classical sidewalks might be the norm in suburbia where in turn detailed mapping is not such hot topic, but in urban areas (at least here) you will find easily find on -one- blocks length a combination, of classical sidewalk, separated by a flowerbed, a wall, being covered arcade and a couple of things I've likely forgotten. I don't believe splitting a sidewalk in to 10 different pieces just to model it to a very impractical doctrine makes any sense. A further problem is that we currently don't have any other way (than seperate ways) to model using sidewalks in route relations, which is particularly an issue if changing sides of the street in question is a problem (traffic, surface, other issues). Janko has already pointed out that mapping details of the sidewalks becomes rather cumbersome (both for mapper and consumer) for physical details and similar. In summary I don't quite see why we can't leave it up to the mapper to choose the appropriate solution. And a properly tagged sidewalk (highway=footway, footway=sidewalk) can always be ignored if the application is question is not interested. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
Am 25.04.2015 um 12:30 schrieb Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: Uh, the example in the other thread was a fence. Grass strips are easily crossable for most pedestrians. Given the number of problems that arise from separately mapping sidewalks, we should only do it if strictly necessary. That is not the case with most grass strips, especially narrow ones of uniform length. how would you map these grass strips themselves? As lanes? If they have a particular shape you want to map? IMHO as soon as there are different carriageways we should map them separately, and state this clearly to avoid edit wars... cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
Hello, I have no problem with most of it, but can you please come up with something else in stead of cycleway=sidewalk. This sounds like the cyclists have to cycle on the part of the road reserved for pedestrians or if the cycleway itself has a sidewalk. I don't know if cycleway=sidepath is proper English, but at least it fits with the tagging scheme of bicycle=use_sidepath. cycleway=sidewalk used only 231 times: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway=sidewalk (use_)sidepath used many more times: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org//search?q=sidepath#values --- m.v.g., Cartinus On 25-04-15 11:29, Roland Olbricht wrote: Dear all, our current pedestrian routers often don't give street names, but instead only instructions like look for the line on the map. To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately mapped footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name. The suggestion had been widely discussed with the German community. Finally we found the following approach: Keep separation rules as already established: A sidewalk (or bike lane) shall be mapped as a separate way only if a pedestrian cannot cross the car lanes at any point, i.e. there are fences or grass strip between footway and the car lanes. Change the tagging suggestion for separated sidewalks and bike lanes: - Sidewalks should carry highway=footway + footway=sidewalk + name=Name of the Street (already in widespread use) - Bike lanes should carry highway=cycleway + cycleway=sidewalk + name=Name of the Street (similar problem) Currently, both the suggestion of footway=sidewalk (similar for cycling) and copying the name is not suggested consistenly in the wiki. Are there any objections to clean-up the wiki with that regard? Side effects on other tools are almost uniformly positive: - Having the name multiple times on the various chunks of a street is a standard OSM policy. - Renderers could handle abundant name tags by ignoring names on ways tagged with footway/cycleway=sidewalk - Routing engines actually can improve by having the name of the road - Quality assurance tools would also profit by having more hints for checking Best regards, Roland ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
Am 25.04.2015 um 11:57 schrieb Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: I'm not sure about only mapping sidewalks that are separated from the road. I agree it has some logic to it, but what about mapping sidewalk width, surface, markings on the ground for the blind, and all those attributes a sidewalk can have? Tagging that on the road makes an even bigger mess of tags. +1, even worse are barriers on the sidewalk, nearly impossible to map them without the sidewalk being mapped cheers Martin___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
Hi, On 04/25/2015 12:33 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately mapped footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name. Why do that instead of just adding a single tag to the road? Roland's use case is routing for pedestrians. If a road has a tag indicating this road has a sidewalk but the sidewalk is not mapped separately, then the router will lead the pedestrian onto the road which is ok. If however the sidewalk is - for whatever reason - mapped as a separate highway=footway, then today it will often be un-named, which leads to the routing engine generating instructions like follow un-named footway for 2 miles when instead it should be follow (footway along) Main Street for 2 miles. Roland's point is that it is too complicated for a routing engine to guess that one un-named footway is really part of Main Street and should be announced as such, whereas another un-named footway might really be nameless. His initial suggestion was to simply add the street name to every separately mapped sidewalk. This was criticised because it would likely lead to labeling chaos on the rendering side (with renderers then having to drop footway labeling altogether or implement complex rules like don't label this if there's a roughly parallel street of the same name or so). Roland then amended his suggestion to say that if a sidewalk receives (a copy of) the name of the street then it should also be tagged footway=sidewalk so that renderers could choose to omit only the names of these (and not all footways). Personally I am still doubtful whether the sidewalk next to X Street really has the name X Street but at least the addition of footway=sidewalk would let users decide how to handle it. For example, a geocoder would likely want to omit indexing footway=sidewalk for forward geocoding. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
First point is the definition of sidewalk as such they should never be mapped as separate routes but tags for such added to the highway. If there is no direct access from the footway to the carriageway, it is not a sidewalk. Cartinus, cycleway=sidewalk is understandable by me as being a shared use cycleway with the pedestrians along the side of the carriageway - and should be dealt with the addition of tags to the highway and not by adding a new feature. On 25 April 2015 at 15:31, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: Hello, I have no problem with most of it, but can you please come up with something else in stead of cycleway=sidewalk. This sounds like the cyclists have to cycle on the part of the road reserved for pedestrians or if the cycleway itself has a sidewalk. I don't know if cycleway=sidepath is proper English, but at least it fits with the tagging scheme of bicycle=use_sidepath. cycleway=sidewalk used only 231 times: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway=sidewalk (use_)sidepath used many more times: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org//search?q=sidepath#values --- m.v.g., Cartinus On 25-04-15 11:29, Roland Olbricht wrote: Dear all, our current pedestrian routers often don't give street names, but instead only instructions like look for the line on the map. To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately mapped footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name. The suggestion had been widely discussed with the German community. Finally we found the following approach: Keep separation rules as already established: A sidewalk (or bike lane) shall be mapped as a separate way only if a pedestrian cannot cross the car lanes at any point, i.e. there are fences or grass strip between footway and the car lanes. Change the tagging suggestion for separated sidewalks and bike lanes: - Sidewalks should carry highway=footway + footway=sidewalk + name=Name of the Street (already in widespread use) - Bike lanes should carry highway=cycleway + cycleway=sidewalk + name=Name of the Street (similar problem) Currently, both the suggestion of footway=sidewalk (similar for cycling) and copying the name is not suggested consistenly in the wiki. Are there any objections to clean-up the wiki with that regard? Side effects on other tools are almost uniformly positive: - Having the name multiple times on the various chunks of a street is a standard OSM policy. - Renderers could handle abundant name tags by ignoring names on ways tagged with footway/cycleway=sidewalk - Routing engines actually can improve by having the name of the road - Quality assurance tools would also profit by having more hints for checking Best regards, Roland ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] sidewalks
+1 Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Tom Chance [mailto:t...@acrewoods.net] Sent: 07 August 2009 23:53 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] sidewalks On Friday 07 Aug 2009 23:15:39 OJ W wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: How is routing going to know that you can cross the road if you're on a sidewalk footpath and there's another one 8m away across a residential road? AFAIK that's an open question. IMHO this will have to be indicated by relations. would it be useful to have a 'sidewalk' tag on such footpaths, which can be interpreted as you may travel from this footpath to the nearest highway without restriction? I'm not clear about the benefit of getting this complicated! That's a lot of extra work! Also, how will a routing engine know if a way without parallel footways is one without pavements or one where the local mapper hasn't entered all of them in? At least details like POIs and house numbers can be optional, in that an area without them just has less scope for namefinder, routing, etc. Can we not assume that every highway except rural trunk roads and motorway has a sidewalk, unless it has an additional tag like sidewalk=no? Or even foot=no! If a pavement/sidewalk deviates significantly, just add a footway / cycleway / other way branching off from the main highway as appropriate. If the pavement/sidewalk is really quite separate, as in your Milton Keynes example (http://osm.org/go/eu4qDpI_3--) then by all means add extra parallel ways. This approach is standard for cycle lanes on the edge of roads, and for cycle lanes that are quite distinct from roads they run parallel to. Regards, Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] sidewalks
Tom Chance wrote: If a pavement/sidewalk deviates significantly, just add a footway / cycleway / other way branching off from the main highway as appropriate. If the pavement/sidewalk is really quite separate, as in your Milton Keynes example (http://osm.org/go/eu4qDpI_3--) then by all means add extra parallel ways. This approach is standard for cycle lanes on the edge of roads, and for cycle lanes that are quite distinct from roads they run parallel to. This is exactly what I was advocating elsewhere. The current target in many countries is simply to get the basic infrastructure of towns and roads down, but Milton Keynes IS a good example of where 'footway' forms a considerable 'non-vehicle' set of ways. At some point, the footway element of every road DOES need to be mapped since - as has been indicated - simply tagging a highway as 'residential' does not mean anything in this context? Perhaps a way forward is to redefine highway as vehicleway ( with simple tags for lorry=no, 4wd=yes, etc ) and move any non vehicle tracks to footway. YES there is a problem with 'can you cross the road', but that is something that we simply do not YET have the information to map anyway. I do not like the current way relations are implemented, but a link of some sort combining two footways and a vehicleway into one 'route' does seem the correct way forward, and when you add a dual carriageway situation - and I'm thinking of ones where there is a central barrier/fence - then the correct walkways would link to the correct lane of the dual carriageway, and the pedestrian crossings would then provide the CORRECT cross links? Giving a practical example of where currently pedestrian routing can't be carried out .. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.52986lon=-0.44605zoom=17layers=B000FTF ( I lived in Hewens Road many years ago so know that area ) There is a fence down the middle of the dual carriage way ( the Uxbridge Road ), and a number of pedestrian crossing links which are the safe way across. In micromapping terms, there are several 'sidewalks', the safe ones are on the north side of the white 'service road' along the side of the dual carriageway, and there are actually similar routes missing from the south side of the road. The 'sidewalks' between the various sections of the road - while usable - are in some areas also fenced like the middle of the dual carriageway to prevent people being pushed into the roadway. Generating a pedestrian route from the north to the south of the area displayed - unfortunately I can't give a link to the 'bird's eye view of the junctions - while the roads have links across, pedestrians are expected to go to the nearest crossing point rather than walking in the roadway. ( And the Police WILL have words with people jumping the fences ;) ) My current view of pedestrian routing is 'Can I push a wheelchair or pram' ... Moving to the country - where I am now - many roads do not have any 'sidewalks', so pedestrian routes are on the same way as the vehicles, but even here, there are safer routes for ramblers in some places, and grass verges that offer a refuge, but some tertiary roads are best avoided even if the foot route does take a longer distance! The exact roads I am thinking of would also benefit from 'elevation' information, in providing additional information ( the footpath routes have stairs for long distances! ) 'foot=not recommended' is the best description, and the wheelchair/pram rule certainly closes many roads to pedestrian routing. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] sidewalks
At 10:20 PM 7/08/2009, OJ W wrote: sidewalks in villages - what to do? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.172898lon=-0.524788zoom=18 are they footpaths or are they road attributes? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Footway A corollary but very important issue is accessibility. Tactile paving, ramps, paths with a couple steps in them, crossing points wheelchair friendly/unfriendly curbs and so on. I have no answers to offer but this is definitely something to take into consideration. Even if we are able to capture the broad facets of sidewalks as attributes of the vehicular way in a way that works worldwide, do we ultimately have to map sidewalks separately or can that be captured too? Something to think about. Mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] sidewalks
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:15 AM, ed...@billiau.net wrote: a previous poster (I've lost the thread as I'm using my webmail) said that these could be assumed in residential areas. While residents here would like concrete paths provided in residential areas they are not standard by any means. That's why I was checking. It is most common to have a verge in residential areas (here) which is within the road reserve but is not road contents of road reserve, where the road reserve is the public land which contains the roadway fence/boundary -- verge -- kerb/guttering/table drain -- road (surfaced or not) -- kerb -- verge -- boundary that space verge may be grass, may contain a pathway, may be rough ground, may be a garden (although obstructing pedestrian passage is not legal) and I'm not likely to be mapping any of it while I've thousands of kms of roads still to go in Western NSW Au. I'm not sure we'll ever achieve consensus, but there's an awful lot of streets-with-sidewalks mapped in Europe with no reference to footway status, and you might reasonably try to infer footway status from the highway tag (if you don't feel able to rely on testing against an urban area polygon). Some people might reasonably believe they could infer it from the highway=residential tag. So it probably doesn't hurt to specify their lack, or use highway=unclassified for roads without pavements/sidewalks. And therein lies another tale... I'm sorry if it seems Euro-centric, but I think we have to extend the tagging scheme to cope with other situations, not try to throw out all the implicit meanings we've accumulated. RIchard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] sidewalks
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Giving a practical example of where currently pedestrian routing can't be carried out .. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.52986lon=-0.44605zoom=17layers=B000FTF ( I lived in Hewens Road many years ago so know that area ) There is a fence down the middle of the dual carriage way ( the Uxbridge Road ), and a number of pedestrian crossing links which are the safe way across. In micromapping terms, there are several 'sidewalks', the safe ones are on the north side of the white 'service road' along the side of the dual carriageway, and there are actually similar routes missing from the south side of the road. The 'sidewalks' between the various sections of the road - while usable - are in some areas also fenced like the middle of the dual carriageway to prevent people being pushed into the roadway. couldn't you just map the fences and crossings? IMHO the pedestrian pavements would clearly have to be mapped separately when divided from the road by a fence (and they should be mapped separately where there is no fence according to current model). Mapping the fences would have to be in addition to the various pavements and service roads. The pavement is on one side of a service road, there is a fence between the service road and the main carriage way and not enough room for someone to walk, and then openings for pedestrian crossings, some with markings on the service road, with fenced staggered pedestrian areas on the central reservation. But perhaps 100 yards away, there will actually be a pavement between the service road and the carriage way and no fences. There is a bus bay as well, just to add to the fun :) I've just been out to pick up some shopping and started to look at the actual path situations on the roads I was driving down, and it does get amazingly complex. The B road near by has a path down one side, separated from the road by a grass verge, but it stops ( probably on the county boundary ;) ) and becomes a sidewalk on the other side of the road into the next village. Through the next village, the footpath takes a complex route, only rejoining the side of the road towards the other end of the village. It looks like I need to expand the local mapping to include all of this and THEN sort out how it should be tagged. But adding highway=footpath down the side of highway=secondary just seems totally out of place . ? There is only one roadway ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] sidewalks
sidewalks in villages - what to do? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.172898lon=-0.524788zoom=18 are they footpaths or are they road attributes? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Footway (probably footpaths if it's at all complicated, since the paths can make detours or take shortcuts relative to the road, they can become cycleways [http://osm.org/go/eu6NCukm9--], they can go into tunnels/bridges separately from the road [http://osm.org/go/eu4qDpI_9--], they may become oneway, change surface, and do all sorts of other stuff independent of the road) How is routing going to know that you can cross the road if you're on a sidewalk footpath and there's another one 8m away across a residential road? Should you connect them to roads at each junction? Is it causing problems for renderers/routers to even add paths alongside roads? (their default assumption being that you can safely walk on unclassified roads - which itself may be a controversial position to take) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] sidewalks
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:20 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: sidewalks in villages - what to do? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.172898lon=-0.524788zoom=18 are they footpaths or are they road attributes? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Footway If it's highway=residential, then I think footways should be assumed anyway. On the unclassified road (the High St), you probably need to specify or draw. I think that including tags on the main way is better, since otherwise you have to associate them in some way (or do a stack of pre-processing to associate them). Rendering in the casing on one side of the road is only in the should be possible in Mapnik category at the moment. I'd go for footway=yes or footway:left=yes or footway:right=yes. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] sidewalks
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009, OJ W wrote: sidewalks in villages - what to do? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.172898lon=-0.524788zoom=18 are they footpaths or are they road attributes? are you thinking of a paved section intended for walking, or just the space which here could be grass, rough ground, or even gardened? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] sidewalks
2009/8/7 OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com: sidewalks in villages - what to do? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.172898lon=-0.524788zoom=18 are they footpaths or are they road attributes? IMHO generally it would be better to have all those things (like lanes) mapped separatly, and the associate them with the street to make clear that it is one way (because otherwise the datum that you can cross / change anywhere is not present). The advantage is local precision. You could map all the curves and corners, where the ways widen and narrow, etc., what you can't by simply tagging one way and tell than that this is in reality 3 ways with width a, b, c and surface x y z. You could also micromap grass dividers, etc. How is routing going to know that you can cross the road if you're on a sidewalk footpath and there's another one 8m away across a residential road? AFAIK that's an open question. IMHO this will have to be indicated by relations. Should you connect them to roads at each junction? if you already map them unregarding that there is no proper data model to represent them, then definitely yes. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] sidewalks
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: How is routing going to know that you can cross the road if you're on a sidewalk footpath and there's another one 8m away across a residential road? AFAIK that's an open question. IMHO this will have to be indicated by relations. would it be useful to have a 'sidewalk' tag on such footpaths, which can be interpreted as you may travel from this footpath to the nearest highway without restriction? (similar to how the addr:housenumber tags attach themselves to the nearest road, without being joined in the data-model) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] sidewalks
On Friday 07 Aug 2009 23:15:39 OJ W wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: How is routing going to know that you can cross the road if you're on a sidewalk footpath and there's another one 8m away across a residential road? AFAIK that's an open question. IMHO this will have to be indicated by relations. would it be useful to have a 'sidewalk' tag on such footpaths, which can be interpreted as you may travel from this footpath to the nearest highway without restriction? I'm not clear about the benefit of getting this complicated! That's a lot of extra work! Also, how will a routing engine know if a way without parallel footways is one without pavements or one where the local mapper hasn't entered all of them in? At least details like POIs and house numbers can be optional, in that an area without them just has less scope for namefinder, routing, etc. Can we not assume that every highway except rural trunk roads and motorway has a sidewalk, unless it has an additional tag like sidewalk=no? Or even foot=no! If a pavement/sidewalk deviates significantly, just add a footway / cycleway / other way branching off from the main highway as appropriate. If the pavement/sidewalk is really quite separate, as in your Milton Keynes example (http://osm.org/go/eu4qDpI_3--) then by all means add extra parallel ways. This approach is standard for cycle lanes on the edge of roads, and for cycle lanes that are quite distinct from roads they run parallel to. Regards, Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] sidewalks
2009/8/8 Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net: I'm not clear about the benefit of getting this complicated! That's a lot of extra work! sure. It's a project for the future, when everything is already mapped ;-), say next year. Also, how will a routing engine know if a way without parallel footways is one without pavements or one where the local mapper hasn't entered all of them in? Well, it can't know it. But currently it can't know it neither. Can we not assume that every highway except rural trunk roads and motorway has a sidewalk, unless it has an additional tag like sidewalk=no? no, you better asume almost nothing, because the world is too big and complex to make such assumptions. Or even foot=no! no, foot=no when it is forbidden. On a road without pavement you can still walk, but it's less pleasant (and probably more dangerous). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] sidewalks
Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com writes: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:20 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: sidewalks in villages - what to do? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.172898lon=-0.524788zoom=18 are they footpaths or are they road attributes? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Footway If it's highway=residential, then I think footways should be assumed anyway. Interesting - in my corner of the world there are no sidewalks on most residential roads. We have a committee to think about creating them on the larger roads... pgpQsuAeWFHa9.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] sidewalks
are you thinking of a paved section intended for walking, or just the space which here could be grass, rough ground, or even gardened? a paved surface intended for walking there are places in my village where you can walk on the grass next to the road - I've been marking them as 'no footpath' a previous poster (I've lost the thread as I'm using my webmail) said that these could be assumed in residential areas. While residents here would like concrete paths provided in residential areas they are not standard by any means. That's why I was checking. It is most common to have a verge in residential areas (here) which is within the road reserve but is not road contents of road reserve, where the road reserve is the public land which contains the roadway fence/boundary -- verge -- kerb/guttering/table drain -- road (surfaced or not) -- kerb -- verge -- boundary that space verge may be grass, may contain a pathway, may be rough ground, may be a garden (although obstructing pedestrian passage is not legal) and I'm not likely to be mapping any of it while I've thousands of kms of roads still to go in Western NSW Au. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
