Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Pierre Béland via Talk-ca]

Bonjour Pierre-Léo,
Divers éléments de la base OSM représentent bien sûr des avantages pour  divers 
groupes.  Par contre du point de vue de la communauté, comment progresser de 
façon à assurer une certaine viabilité du projet. Certains ont intérêt à ce que 
tous les bâtiments soient tracés, d'autres veulent les trottoirs etc. 

La question qui est posée ici, pourrons nous comme communauté supporter de tels 
projets, quels sont les priorités. Malheureusement la communauté n'est pas 
aussi développée qu'en Europe.  Et des groupes comme le tiens arrivent avec des 
projets fort louabes.  Mais voyez-vous la possibilité de vous engager à 
supporter ces projets à long terme, à assurer la qualité, corriger les 
problèmes, bien documenter ?  Avez-vous les outils pour faire le suivi de tels 
schémas tel ajout de trottoirs, et bien suivre l'édition de ces données?  Ou 
comme pour beaucoup d'autres projets,  vous vous dites que la communauté saura 
ensuite supporter, corriger le tout?
 
Pierre 
 

Le vendredi 3 avril 2020 16 h 51 min 42 s UTC−4, Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais 
 a écrit :  
 
 Be very careful here, as universities and non-profit organizations did support 
and encourage better cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. There are a great 
amount of traffic calming and cycling path construction that were justified by 
research projects. Without precise data in OpenStreetMap, it is very difficult 
to justify such projects with the governments. Also, people that needs 
universal accessibility greatly benefit from precise pedestrian data 
(wheelchairs, deaf or blinded people).
Universities and researchers are your allies here.
Because of hard work by a lot of researchers in the transportation domain, we 
can save lives (vision Zero for instance) and increase overall security in 
urban and rural environement. That is not superfluous at all.
The more data we have when presenting to elected officials and governemnt 
agencies, the more we can justify cycling paths and sidewalk construction. 
Without good complete and precise data, they will not even listen to us.

  ___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[john whelan]

One of the nice things about the disabled community is we get a fair amount
of data either from them or by people supporting them.  As Clifford
mentioned this sort of thing is useful to them and as I grow older this
sort of information is unfortunately getting more useful to myself.

Universities can be useful as well although the students do tend to refine
the detail on highways etc close the them.  In Ottawa a foot bridge I
orginally mapped near the University of Ottawa  has been updated about
thirty times now.  On a personal note the building import in Ottawa came
from a file that was identified by a University lecturer so Universities
can be useful.

When I look at the map I wonder about the level of detail we have
sometimes.  Do we really need to know that the surface is asphalt rather
than paved?

Personally I'd rather see the data included.

Cheerio John

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 4:26 PM Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca, <
talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Nate, when reading this and other comments I try to figure who puts those
> sidewalks in and to the benefit of what users. From what I can see it is
> being done by university groups essentially, not the community. The
> beneficiaries are organizations that funds those groups with strings
> attached, essentially buying a service. The OSM mass of end-users is not it
> appears the beneficiary but rather a very small group of people. I thus ask
> very honestly are the universities hijacking OSM to execute their research
> projects just because it is there, free and easily usable ? Are OSM users
> ever a concern ? With regards to this specific sidewalk mapping effort I
> really have a hard time figuring how a mainstream OSM user, through the
> site or a mobile app, benefits in any way from this added layer or
> complexity. I tend to think to the contrary is makes the map overly
> complex, add information nobody will ever care about, render the experience
> cumbersome, that with no tangible gain. If that was the case I don’t think
> that would be right.
>
> I don’t mean this to be inflammatory but just an honest questioning.
>
> On Apr 3, 2020, at 15:14, Nate Wessel  wrote:
>
> I used to be opposed to sidewalk mapping, and I still think it is often
> done poorly. I've changed my mind in the last year or two though. When I
> first moved into my current neighborhood and started mapping the area, I
> hated at all the poorly drawn sidewalks. They weren't well aligned, they
> didn't do anything to indicate crossings, and they were far from complete.
> For a while I was temped to delete the lot of them, but instead worked to
> gradually fix them up, noted marked or signalized crossings, added in
> traffic islands, pedestrian barriers etc.
>
> Once you have a high-quality, relatively complete mapping of sidewalks, I
> really think they add a lot of value. You can see where sidewalks end,
> where crossings are absent, how long crossings are, whether there is
> separation from other traffic by e.g. fence or bollards.
>
> It's not just about routing. Sidewalks (and crossings) are infrastructure
> in their own right and deserve to be mapped as such, at least in many dense
> urban areas, and especially where they vary significantly from street to
> street. I'm not saying it should be done everywhere, but it definitely does
> have value in some places.
>
> Best,
>
> Nate Wessel, PhD
> Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
> NateWessel.com 
> On 2020-04-03 2:49 p.m., Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 4/3/20 19:45, Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca wrote:
>
> This morning I checked some large cities namely New-York, Paris, Amsterdam, 
> London, Berlin. Since OSM is best developed in Europe these capitals make 
> sense. I just checked Tokyo, Shangai, Seoul, Sydney to sample Asia. None of 
> them have this sidewalk mapping as separate ways.
>
> There are pockets here and there in Europe as well. Mostly what happens
> is this:
>
> 1. Someone wants to make a cool pedestrian/wheelchair/schoolkid routing
> project
>
> 2. The person or team has limited programming capability or budget, and
> hence must attack the problem with a standard routing engine
>
> 3. Standard routing engines do not have the capability to infer a
> sidewalk network from appropriately tagged streets (i.e. even if the
> street has a tag that indicates there's sidewalks left and right, the
> routing engine will not generate individual edges and hence cannot do
> something like "follow left side of X road here, then cross there, then
> follow right side" or so
>
> 4. Hence, tons of sidewalks (and often also pseudo-ways across plazas)
> are entered into OSM, to "make the routing work".
>
> (5. often people will then find that the routing engine generates
> instructions like "follow unnamed footway for 1 mile" which leads them
> to copy the road's name onto the sidewalk geometry... to "make the
> routing work").
>
> (6. In some countries a pedestrian is allowed to cross a street
> 

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca]

I agree with you in principle. And I know for a fact that statistics and 
studies done in universities are very useful to justify new infrastructures.  
But concretely I don’t see the parallel. Great things were done for the cycling 
infrastructure and it came a long way. The OSM map is not a mess because of it. 
  The ways were not all duplicated three times to show a bike can ride on a 
street. I and others are just questioning if what is being done now is the way 
to go. Now is the time to do that before it perhaps becomes too late because 
there is no undo or redo button.

> On Apr 3, 2020, at 16:50, Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais  wrote:
> 
> Be very careful here, as universities and non-profit organizations did 
> support and encourage better cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. There are 
> a great amount of traffic calming and cycling path construction that were 
> justified by research projects. Without precise data in OpenStreetMap, it is 
> very difficult to justify such projects with the governments. Also, people 
> that needs universal accessibility greatly benefit from precise pedestrian 
> data (wheelchairs, deaf or blinded people).
> 
> Universities and researchers are your allies here.
> 
> Because of hard work by a lot of researchers in the transportation domain, we 
> can save lives (vision Zero for instance) and increase overall security in 
> urban and rural environement. That is not superfluous at all.
> 
> The more data we have when presenting to elected officials and governemnt 
> agencies, the more we can justify cycling paths and sidewalk construction. 
> Without good complete and precise data, they will not even listen to us.
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 3, 2020, at 16:39, Pierre Boucher > > wrote:
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> Envoyé par BlueMail 
>> Le 3 avr. 2020, à 16:26, Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca 
>> mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>> a écrit:
>> Nate, when reading this and other comments I try to figure who puts those 
>> sidewalks in and to the benefit of what users. From what I can see it is 
>> being done by university groups essentially, not the community. The 
>> beneficiaries are organizations that funds those groups with strings 
>> attached, essentially buying a service. The OSM mass of end-users is not it 
>> appears the beneficiary but rather a very small group of people. I thus ask 
>> very honestly are the universities hijacking OSM to execute their research 
>> projects just because it is there, free and easily usable ? Are OSM users 
>> ever a concern ? With regards to this specific sidewalk mapping effort I 
>> really have a hard time figuring how a mainstream OSM user, through the site 
>> or a mobile app, benefits in any way from this added layer or complexity. I 
>> tend to think to the contrary is makes the map overly complex, add 
>> information nobody will ever care about, render the experience cumbersome, 
>> that with no tangible gain. If that was the case I don’t think that would be 
>> right.
>> 
>> I don’t mean this to be inflammatory but just an honest questioning.
>> 
>>> On Apr 3, 2020, at 15:14, Nate Wessel >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> I used to be opposed to sidewalk mapping, and I still think it is often 
>>> done poorly. I've changed my mind in the last year or two though. When I 
>>> first moved into my current neighborhood and started mapping the area, I 
>>> hated at all the poorly drawn sidewalks. They weren't well aligned, they 
>>> didn't do anything to indicate crossings, and they were far from complete. 
>>> For a while I was temped to delete the lot of them, but instead worked to 
>>> gradually fix them up, noted marked or signalized crossings, added in 
>>> traffic islands, pedestrian barriers etc. 
>>> 
>>> Once you have a high-quality, relatively complete mapping of sidewalks, I 
>>> really think they add a lot of value. You can see where sidewalks end, 
>>> where crossings are absent, how long crossings are, whether there is 
>>> separation from other traffic by e.g. fence or bollards. 
>>> 
>>> It's not just about routing. Sidewalks (and crossings) are infrastructure 
>>> in their own right and deserve to be mapped as such, at least in many dense 
>>> urban areas, and especially where they vary significantly from street to 
>>> street. I'm not saying it should be done everywhere, but it definitely does 
>>> have value in some places. 
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Nate Wessel, PhD
>>> Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
>>> NateWessel.com 
>>> On 2020-04-03 2:49 p.m., Frederik Ramm wrote:
 Hi,
 
 On 4/3/20 19:45, Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca wrote:
> This morning I checked some large cities namely New-York, Paris, 
> Amsterdam, London, Berlin. Since OSM is best developed in Europe these 
> capitals make sense. I just checked Tokyo, Shangai, Seoul, Sydney to 
> sample Asia. None of them have this sidewalk mapping as 

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Nate Wessel]

Martin,

Why wouldn't you consider university groups a part of the community? I 
think it's quite valid to worry about the motive and commitment of 
groups that have a pure profit motive for working on OSM, but I wouldn't 
think of universities first. There are lots of actual for-profit 
companies like Mapbox or TeleNav that have stronger and more driving 
incentives, and larger workforces making edits on their behalf. Not to 
say that they are evil either..


Personally, I've been paid to edit OSM once before. I got $1,000 to 
survey and map Toronto's PATH network for a small company when I first 
moved to Canada. I had a lot of fun doing it. I haven't kept it up since 
then, but I can certainly say that I left the PATH in a better state 
than I found it. The work was done (explicitly) to benefit a handful of 
people, but who was harmed? I added elevators, escalators, stairs, 
ramps, food courts and a hundred other little things that will never 
trouble the 'average user'.


The beauty of OSM to me is that it has no one purpose. There is no one 
reason that we're doing this. One person might want good walking 
directions, another might want to know where bookshops are, and on and 
on ad infinitum. The bookshops don't get in the way of the walking 
directions. They don't necessarily add complexity, but they do allow for 
it if one wants to go down that road.


If anyone thinks the map is too complex, I would remind them that there 
is no such thing as "the map". There's a database with a ton of crazy 
stuff in it and there are maps that render aspects of that database, or 
allow interaction with them. If you don't like any of the OSM maps 
you've seen so far, you are free to make one that you do like. I've done 
that before too and I can tell you it was immensely satisfying :-)


Best,

Nate Wessel, PhD
Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
NateWessel.com 

On 2020-04-03 4:25 p.m., Martin Chalifoux wrote:
Nate, when reading this and other comments I try to figure who puts 
those sidewalks in and to the benefit of what users. From what I can 
see it is being done by university groups essentially, not the 
community. The beneficiaries are organizations that funds those groups 
with strings attached, essentially buying a service. The OSM mass of 
end-users is not it appears the beneficiary but rather a very small 
group of people. I thus ask very honestly are the universities 
hijacking OSM to execute their research projects just because it is 
there, free and easily usable ? Are OSM users ever a concern ? With 
regards to this specific sidewalk mapping effort I really have a hard 
time figuring how a mainstream OSM user, through the site or a mobile 
app, benefits in any way from this added layer or complexity. I tend 
to think to the contrary is makes the map overly complex, add 
information nobody will ever care about, render the experience 
cumbersome, that with no tangible gain. If that was the case I don’t 
think that would be right.


I don’t mean this to be inflammatory but just an honest questioning.

On Apr 3, 2020, at 15:14, Nate Wessel > wrote:


I used to be opposed to sidewalk mapping, and I still think it is 
often done poorly. I've changed my mind in the last year or two 
though. When I first moved into my current neighborhood and started 
mapping the area, I hated at all the poorly drawn sidewalks. They 
weren't well aligned, they didn't do anything to indicate crossings, 
and they were far from complete. For a while I was temped to delete 
the lot of them, but instead worked to gradually fix them up, noted 
marked or signalized crossings, added in traffic islands, pedestrian 
barriers etc.


Once you have a high-quality, relatively complete mapping of 
sidewalks, I really think they add a lot of value. You can see where 
sidewalks end, where crossings are absent, how long crossings are, 
whether there is separation from other traffic by e.g. fence or 
bollards.


It's not just about routing. Sidewalks (and crossings) are 
infrastructure in their own right and deserve to be mapped as such, 
at least in many dense urban areas, and especially where they vary 
significantly from street to street. I'm not saying it should be done 
everywhere, but it definitely does have value in some places.


Best,

Nate Wessel, PhD
Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
NateWessel.com 

On 2020-04-03 2:49 p.m., Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 4/3/20 19:45, Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca wrote:

This morning I checked some large cities namely New-York, Paris, Amsterdam, 
London, Berlin. Since OSM is best developed in Europe these capitals make 
sense. I just checked Tokyo, Shangai, Seoul, Sydney to sample Asia. None of 
them have this sidewalk mapping as separate ways.

There are pockets here and there in Europe as well. Mostly what happens
is this:

1. Someone wants to make a cool pedestrian/wheelchair/schoolkid routing
project

2. 

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais]

Be very careful here, as universities and non-profit organizations did support 
and encourage better cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. There are a great 
amount of traffic calming and cycling path construction that were justified by 
research projects. Without precise data in OpenStreetMap, it is very difficult 
to justify such projects with the governments. Also, people that needs 
universal accessibility greatly benefit from precise pedestrian data 
(wheelchairs, deaf or blinded people).

Universities and researchers are your allies here.

Because of hard work by a lot of researchers in the transportation domain, we 
can save lives (vision Zero for instance) and increase overall security in 
urban and rural environement. That is not superfluous at all.

The more data we have when presenting to elected officials and governemnt 
agencies, the more we can justify cycling paths and sidewalk construction. 
Without good complete and precise data, they will not even listen to us.



> On Apr 3, 2020, at 16:39, Pierre Boucher  wrote:
> 
> Martin
> 
> Envoyé par BlueMail 
> Le 3 avr. 2020, à 16:26, Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca 
> mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>> a écrit:
> Nate, when reading this and other comments I try to figure who puts those 
> sidewalks in and to the benefit of what users. From what I can see it is 
> being done by university groups essentially, not the community. The 
> beneficiaries are organizations that funds those groups with strings 
> attached, essentially buying a service. The OSM mass of end-users is not it 
> appears the beneficiary but rather a very small group of people. I thus ask 
> very honestly are the universities hijacking OSM to execute their research 
> projects just because it is there, free and easily usable ? Are OSM users 
> ever a concern ? With regards to this specific sidewalk mapping effort I 
> really have a hard time figuring how a mainstream OSM user, through the site 
> or a mobile app, benefits in any way from this added layer or complexity. I 
> tend to think to the contrary is makes the map overly complex, add 
> information nobody will ever care about, render the experience cumbersome, 
> that with no tangible gain. If that was the case I don’t think that would be 
> right.
> 
> I don’t mean this to be inflammatory but just an honest questioning.
> 
>> On Apr 3, 2020, at 15:14, Nate Wessel > > wrote:
>> 
>> I used to be opposed to sidewalk mapping, and I still think it is often done 
>> poorly. I've changed my mind in the last year or two though. When I first 
>> moved into my current neighborhood and started mapping the area, I hated at 
>> all the poorly drawn sidewalks. They weren't well aligned, they didn't do 
>> anything to indicate crossings, and they were far from complete. For a while 
>> I was temped to delete the lot of them, but instead worked to gradually fix 
>> them up, noted marked or signalized crossings, added in traffic islands, 
>> pedestrian barriers etc. 
>> 
>> Once you have a high-quality, relatively complete mapping of sidewalks, I 
>> really think they add a lot of value. You can see where sidewalks end, where 
>> crossings are absent, how long crossings are, whether there is separation 
>> from other traffic by e.g. fence or bollards. 
>> 
>> It's not just about routing. Sidewalks (and crossings) are infrastructure in 
>> their own right and deserve to be mapped as such, at least in many dense 
>> urban areas, and especially where they vary significantly from street to 
>> street. I'm not saying it should be done everywhere, but it definitely does 
>> have value in some places. 
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Nate Wessel, PhD
>> Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
>> NateWessel.com 
>> On 2020-04-03 2:49 p.m., Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> On 4/3/20 19:45, Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca wrote:
 This morning I checked some large cities namely New-York, Paris, 
 Amsterdam, London, Berlin. Since OSM is best developed in Europe these 
 capitals make sense. I just checked Tokyo, Shangai, Seoul, Sydney to 
 sample Asia. None of them have this sidewalk mapping as separate ways.
>>> There are pockets here and there in Europe as well. Mostly what happens
>>> is this:
>>> 
>>> 1. Someone wants to make a cool pedestrian/wheelchair/schoolkid routing
>>> project
>>> 
>>> 2. The person or team has limited programming capability or budget, and
>>> hence must attack the problem with a standard routing engine
>>> 
>>> 3. Standard routing engines do not have the capability to infer a
>>> sidewalk network from appropriately tagged streets (i.e. even if the
>>> street has a tag that indicates there's sidewalks left and right, the
>>> routing engine will not generate individual edges and hence cannot do
>>> something like "follow left side of X road here, then cross there, then
>>> follow right side" or so
>>> 
>>> 4. Hence, tons of 

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[James]

I mapped most the sidewalks in Ottawa with another person and we did it as
part of the community, no strings attached.

On Fri., Apr. 3, 2020, 4:26 p.m. Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca, <
talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Nate, when reading this and other comments I try to figure who puts those
> sidewalks in and to the benefit of what users. From what I can see it is
> being done by university groups essentially, not the community. The
> beneficiaries are organizations that funds those groups with strings
> attached, essentially buying a service. The OSM mass of end-users is not it
> appears the beneficiary but rather a very small group of people. I thus ask
> very honestly are the universities hijacking OSM to execute their research
> projects just because it is there, free and easily usable ? Are OSM users
> ever a concern ? With regards to this specific sidewalk mapping effort I
> really have a hard time figuring how a mainstream OSM user, through the
> site or a mobile app, benefits in any way from this added layer or
> complexity. I tend to think to the contrary is makes the map overly
> complex, add information nobody will ever care about, render the experience
> cumbersome, that with no tangible gain. If that was the case I don’t think
> that would be right.
>
> I don’t mean this to be inflammatory but just an honest questioning.
>
> On Apr 3, 2020, at 15:14, Nate Wessel  wrote:
>
> I used to be opposed to sidewalk mapping, and I still think it is often
> done poorly. I've changed my mind in the last year or two though. When I
> first moved into my current neighborhood and started mapping the area, I
> hated at all the poorly drawn sidewalks. They weren't well aligned, they
> didn't do anything to indicate crossings, and they were far from complete.
> For a while I was temped to delete the lot of them, but instead worked to
> gradually fix them up, noted marked or signalized crossings, added in
> traffic islands, pedestrian barriers etc.
>
> Once you have a high-quality, relatively complete mapping of sidewalks, I
> really think they add a lot of value. You can see where sidewalks end,
> where crossings are absent, how long crossings are, whether there is
> separation from other traffic by e.g. fence or bollards.
>
> It's not just about routing. Sidewalks (and crossings) are infrastructure
> in their own right and deserve to be mapped as such, at least in many dense
> urban areas, and especially where they vary significantly from street to
> street. I'm not saying it should be done everywhere, but it definitely does
> have value in some places.
>
> Best,
>
> Nate Wessel, PhD
> Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
> NateWessel.com 
> On 2020-04-03 2:49 p.m., Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 4/3/20 19:45, Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca wrote:
>
> This morning I checked some large cities namely New-York, Paris, Amsterdam, 
> London, Berlin. Since OSM is best developed in Europe these capitals make 
> sense. I just checked Tokyo, Shangai, Seoul, Sydney to sample Asia. None of 
> them have this sidewalk mapping as separate ways.
>
> There are pockets here and there in Europe as well. Mostly what happens
> is this:
>
> 1. Someone wants to make a cool pedestrian/wheelchair/schoolkid routing
> project
>
> 2. The person or team has limited programming capability or budget, and
> hence must attack the problem with a standard routing engine
>
> 3. Standard routing engines do not have the capability to infer a
> sidewalk network from appropriately tagged streets (i.e. even if the
> street has a tag that indicates there's sidewalks left and right, the
> routing engine will not generate individual edges and hence cannot do
> something like "follow left side of X road here, then cross there, then
> follow right side" or so
>
> 4. Hence, tons of sidewalks (and often also pseudo-ways across plazas)
> are entered into OSM, to "make the routing work".
>
> (5. often people will then find that the routing engine generates
> instructions like "follow unnamed footway for 1 mile" which leads them
> to copy the road's name onto the sidewalk geometry... to "make the
> routing work").
>
> (6. In some countries a pedestrian is allowed to cross a street
> anywhere. Happily I haven't yet encountered people cris-crossing the
> streets with footway connections to "make the routing work" in these
> countries. If you're in a country where you are only allowed to cross at
> marked crossings then that is easier.)
>
> All this is a sad state of affairs; if we had routing engines that could
> work well with simple "sidewalk" tags (and also make standard
> assumptions about which road types in which countries would usually have
> sidewalks even if not explicitly tagged), then we could save ourselves a
> *lot* of separately mapped sidewalks that really do not add valuable
> information, and just serve as crutches for routing engines.
>
> Personally I am very much opposed to the separate mapping of 

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Pierre Boucher]

Martin

⁣Envoyé par BlueMail ​

Le 3 avr. 2020 16:26, à 16:26, Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca 
 a écrit:
>Nate, when reading this and other comments I try to figure who puts
>those sidewalks in and to the benefit of what users. From what I can
>see it is being done by university groups essentially, not the
>community. The beneficiaries are organizations that funds those groups
>with strings attached, essentially buying a service. The OSM mass of
>end-users is not it appears the beneficiary but rather a very small
>group of people. I thus ask very honestly are the universities
>hijacking OSM to execute their research projects just because it is
>there, free and easily usable ? Are OSM users ever a concern ? With
>regards to this specific sidewalk mapping effort I really have a hard
>time figuring how a mainstream OSM user, through the site or a mobile
>app, benefits in any way from this added layer or complexity. I tend to
>think to the contrary is makes the map overly complex, add information
>nobody will ever care about, render the experience cumbersome, that
>with no tangible gain. If that was the case I don’t think that would be
>right.
>
>I don’t mean this to be inflammatory but just an honest questioning.
>
>> On Apr 3, 2020, at 15:14, Nate Wessel  wrote:
>>
>> I used to be opposed to sidewalk mapping, and I still think it is
>often done poorly. I've changed my mind in the last year or two though.
>When I first moved into my current neighborhood and started mapping the
>area, I hated at all the poorly drawn sidewalks. They weren't well
>aligned, they didn't do anything to indicate crossings, and they were
>far from complete. For a while I was temped to delete the lot of them,
>but instead worked to gradually fix them up, noted marked or signalized
>crossings, added in traffic islands, pedestrian barriers etc.
>>
>> Once you have a high-quality, relatively complete mapping of
>sidewalks, I really think they add a lot of value. You can see where
>sidewalks end, where crossings are absent, how long crossings are,
>whether there is separation from other traffic by e.g. fence or
>bollards.
>>
>> It's not just about routing. Sidewalks (and crossings) are
>infrastructure in their own right and deserve to be mapped as such, at
>least in many dense urban areas, and especially where they vary
>significantly from street to street. I'm not saying it should be done
>everywhere, but it definitely does have value in some places.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Nate Wessel, PhD
>> Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
>> NateWessel.com 
>> On 2020-04-03 2:49 p.m., Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 4/3/20 19:45, Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca wrote:
 This morning I checked some large cities namely New-York, Paris,
>Amsterdam, London, Berlin. Since OSM is best developed in Europe these
>capitals make sense. I just checked Tokyo, Shangai, Seoul, Sydney to
>sample Asia. None of them have this sidewalk mapping as separate ways.
>>> There are pockets here and there in Europe as well. Mostly what
>happens
>>> is this:
>>>
>>> 1. Someone wants to make a cool pedestrian/wheelchair/schoolkid
>routing
>>> project
>>>
>>> 2. The person or team has limited programming capability or budget,
>and
>>> hence must attack the problem with a standard routing engine
>>>
>>> 3. Standard routing engines do not have the capability to infer a
>>> sidewalk network from appropriately tagged streets (i.e. even if the
>>> street has a tag that indicates there's sidewalks left and right,
>the
>>> routing engine will not generate individual edges and hence cannot
>do
>>> something like "follow left side of X road here, then cross there,
>then
>>> follow right side" or so
>>>
>>> 4. Hence, tons of sidewalks (and often also pseudo-ways across
>plazas)
>>> are entered into OSM, to "make the routing work".
>>>
>>> (5. often people will then find that the routing engine generates
>>> instructions like "follow unnamed footway for 1 mile" which leads
>them
>>> to copy the road's name onto the sidewalk geometry... to "make the
>>> routing work").
>>>
>>> (6. In some countries a pedestrian is allowed to cross a street
>>> anywhere. Happily I haven't yet encountered people cris-crossing the
>>> streets with footway connections to "make the routing work" in these
>>> countries. If you're in a country where you are only allowed to
>cross at
>>> marked crossings then that is easier.)
>>>
>>> All this is a sad state of affairs; if we had routing engines that
>could
>>> work well with simple "sidewalk" tags (and also make standard
>>> assumptions about which road types in which countries would usually
>have
>>> sidewalks even if not explicitly tagged), then we could save
>ourselves a
>>> *lot* of separately mapped sidewalks that really do not add valuable
>>> information, and just serve as crutches for routing engines.
>>>
>>> Personally I am very much opposed to the separate mapping of
>sidewalks,
>>> though I recognize that unless we 

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca]

Nate, when reading this and other comments I try to figure who puts those 
sidewalks in and to the benefit of what users. From what I can see it is being 
done by university groups essentially, not the community. The beneficiaries are 
organizations that funds those groups with strings attached, essentially buying 
a service. The OSM mass of end-users is not it appears the beneficiary but 
rather a very small group of people. I thus ask very honestly are the 
universities hijacking OSM to execute their research projects just because it 
is there, free and easily usable ? Are OSM users ever a concern ? With regards 
to this specific sidewalk mapping effort I really have a hard time figuring how 
a mainstream OSM user, through the site or a mobile app, benefits in any way 
from this added layer or complexity. I tend to think to the contrary is makes 
the map overly complex, add information nobody will ever care about, render the 
experience cumbersome, that with no tangible gain. If that was the case I don’t 
think that would be right.

I don’t mean this to be inflammatory but just an honest questioning.

> On Apr 3, 2020, at 15:14, Nate Wessel  wrote:
> 
> I used to be opposed to sidewalk mapping, and I still think it is often done 
> poorly. I've changed my mind in the last year or two though. When I first 
> moved into my current neighborhood and started mapping the area, I hated at 
> all the poorly drawn sidewalks. They weren't well aligned, they didn't do 
> anything to indicate crossings, and they were far from complete. For a while 
> I was temped to delete the lot of them, but instead worked to gradually fix 
> them up, noted marked or signalized crossings, added in traffic islands, 
> pedestrian barriers etc. 
> 
> Once you have a high-quality, relatively complete mapping of sidewalks, I 
> really think they add a lot of value. You can see where sidewalks end, where 
> crossings are absent, how long crossings are, whether there is separation 
> from other traffic by e.g. fence or bollards. 
> 
> It's not just about routing. Sidewalks (and crossings) are infrastructure in 
> their own right and deserve to be mapped as such, at least in many dense 
> urban areas, and especially where they vary significantly from street to 
> street. I'm not saying it should be done everywhere, but it definitely does 
> have value in some places. 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Nate Wessel, PhD
> Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
> NateWessel.com 
> On 2020-04-03 2:49 p.m., Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On 4/3/20 19:45, Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca wrote:
>>> This morning I checked some large cities namely New-York, Paris, Amsterdam, 
>>> London, Berlin. Since OSM is best developed in Europe these capitals make 
>>> sense. I just checked Tokyo, Shangai, Seoul, Sydney to sample Asia. None of 
>>> them have this sidewalk mapping as separate ways.
>> There are pockets here and there in Europe as well. Mostly what happens
>> is this:
>> 
>> 1. Someone wants to make a cool pedestrian/wheelchair/schoolkid routing
>> project
>> 
>> 2. The person or team has limited programming capability or budget, and
>> hence must attack the problem with a standard routing engine
>> 
>> 3. Standard routing engines do not have the capability to infer a
>> sidewalk network from appropriately tagged streets (i.e. even if the
>> street has a tag that indicates there's sidewalks left and right, the
>> routing engine will not generate individual edges and hence cannot do
>> something like "follow left side of X road here, then cross there, then
>> follow right side" or so
>> 
>> 4. Hence, tons of sidewalks (and often also pseudo-ways across plazas)
>> are entered into OSM, to "make the routing work".
>> 
>> (5. often people will then find that the routing engine generates
>> instructions like "follow unnamed footway for 1 mile" which leads them
>> to copy the road's name onto the sidewalk geometry... to "make the
>> routing work").
>> 
>> (6. In some countries a pedestrian is allowed to cross a street
>> anywhere. Happily I haven't yet encountered people cris-crossing the
>> streets with footway connections to "make the routing work" in these
>> countries. If you're in a country where you are only allowed to cross at
>> marked crossings then that is easier.)
>> 
>> All this is a sad state of affairs; if we had routing engines that could
>> work well with simple "sidewalk" tags (and also make standard
>> assumptions about which road types in which countries would usually have
>> sidewalks even if not explicitly tagged), then we could save ourselves a
>> *lot* of separately mapped sidewalks that really do not add valuable
>> information, and just serve as crutches for routing engines.
>> 
>> Personally I am very much opposed to the separate mapping of sidewalks,
>> though I recognize that unless we have routing engines that work without
>> these crutches, I will have a hard time convincing people to stop doing
>> that.
>> 

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Nate Wessel]

I used to be opposed to sidewalk mapping, and I still think it is often 
done poorly. I've changed my mind in the last year or two though. When I 
first moved into my current neighborhood and started mapping the area, I 
hated at all the poorly drawn sidewalks. They weren't well aligned, they 
didn't do anything to indicate crossings, and they were far from 
complete. For a while I was temped to delete the lot of them, but 
instead worked to gradually fix them up, noted marked or signalized 
crossings, added in traffic islands, pedestrian barriers etc.


Once you have a high-quality, relatively complete mapping of sidewalks, 
I really think they add a lot of value. You can see where sidewalks end, 
where crossings are absent, how long crossings are, whether there is 
separation from other traffic by e.g. fence or bollards.


It's not just about routing. Sidewalks (and crossings) are 
infrastructure in their own right and deserve to be mapped as such, at 
least in many dense urban areas, and especially where they vary 
significantly from street to street. I'm not saying it should be done 
everywhere, but it definitely does have value in some places.


Best,

Nate Wessel, PhD
Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
NateWessel.com 

On 2020-04-03 2:49 p.m., Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 4/3/20 19:45, Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca wrote:

This morning I checked some large cities namely New-York, Paris, Amsterdam, 
London, Berlin. Since OSM is best developed in Europe these capitals make 
sense. I just checked Tokyo, Shangai, Seoul, Sydney to sample Asia. None of 
them have this sidewalk mapping as separate ways.

There are pockets here and there in Europe as well. Mostly what happens
is this:

1. Someone wants to make a cool pedestrian/wheelchair/schoolkid routing
project

2. The person or team has limited programming capability or budget, and
hence must attack the problem with a standard routing engine

3. Standard routing engines do not have the capability to infer a
sidewalk network from appropriately tagged streets (i.e. even if the
street has a tag that indicates there's sidewalks left and right, the
routing engine will not generate individual edges and hence cannot do
something like "follow left side of X road here, then cross there, then
follow right side" or so

4. Hence, tons of sidewalks (and often also pseudo-ways across plazas)
are entered into OSM, to "make the routing work".

(5. often people will then find that the routing engine generates
instructions like "follow unnamed footway for 1 mile" which leads them
to copy the road's name onto the sidewalk geometry... to "make the
routing work").

(6. In some countries a pedestrian is allowed to cross a street
anywhere. Happily I haven't yet encountered people cris-crossing the
streets with footway connections to "make the routing work" in these
countries. If you're in a country where you are only allowed to cross at
marked crossings then that is easier.)

All this is a sad state of affairs; if we had routing engines that could
work well with simple "sidewalk" tags (and also make standard
assumptions about which road types in which countries would usually have
sidewalks even if not explicitly tagged), then we could save ourselves a
*lot* of separately mapped sidewalks that really do not add valuable
information, and just serve as crutches for routing engines.

Personally I am very much opposed to the separate mapping of sidewalks,
though I recognize that unless we have routing engines that work without
these crutches, I will have a hard time convincing people to stop doing
that.

Bye
Frederik

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 4/3/20 19:45, Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca wrote:
> This morning I checked some large cities namely New-York, Paris, Amsterdam, 
> London, Berlin. Since OSM is best developed in Europe these capitals make 
> sense. I just checked Tokyo, Shangai, Seoul, Sydney to sample Asia. None of 
> them have this sidewalk mapping as separate ways.

There are pockets here and there in Europe as well. Mostly what happens
is this:

1. Someone wants to make a cool pedestrian/wheelchair/schoolkid routing
project

2. The person or team has limited programming capability or budget, and
hence must attack the problem with a standard routing engine

3. Standard routing engines do not have the capability to infer a
sidewalk network from appropriately tagged streets (i.e. even if the
street has a tag that indicates there's sidewalks left and right, the
routing engine will not generate individual edges and hence cannot do
something like "follow left side of X road here, then cross there, then
follow right side" or so

4. Hence, tons of sidewalks (and often also pseudo-ways across plazas)
are entered into OSM, to "make the routing work".

(5. often people will then find that the routing engine generates
instructions like "follow unnamed footway for 1 mile" which leads them
to copy the road's name onto the sidewalk geometry... to "make the
routing work").

(6. In some countries a pedestrian is allowed to cross a street
anywhere. Happily I haven't yet encountered people cris-crossing the
streets with footway connections to "make the routing work" in these
countries. If you're in a country where you are only allowed to cross at
marked crossings then that is easier.)

All this is a sad state of affairs; if we had routing engines that could
work well with simple "sidewalk" tags (and also make standard
assumptions about which road types in which countries would usually have
sidewalks even if not explicitly tagged), then we could save ourselves a
*lot* of separately mapped sidewalks that really do not add valuable
information, and just serve as crutches for routing engines.

Personally I am very much opposed to the separate mapping of sidewalks,
though I recognize that unless we have routing engines that work without
these crutches, I will have a hard time convincing people to stop doing
that.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

Martin Chalifoux:
> This morning I checked some large cities namely New-York, Paris, Amsterdam, 
> London, Berlin. Since OSM is best developed in Europe these capitals make 
> sense. I just checked Tokyo, Shangai, Seoul, Sydney to sample Asia. None of 
> them have this sidewalk mapping as separate ways. I however found a bit of 
> that scheme in San-Francisco.  I am not sure where this idea is coming from, 
> who is backing this implementation and who it does service to, but it sure is 
> a mess in many ways.

I map in both Europe and Canada. More Europe for the time being, because I do 
not
think that I will be using my plane ticket to Canada next week.

In North America it is more common, I think, to separate roads and sidewalks by 
a
small patch of grass. Which is an argument for mapping sidewalks individually. I
think e.g., a ditch would be a stronger argument.

In Europe, or at least Denmark, we have a lot of roads with both sidewalks and
bicycle lanes or tracks. Mapping an intersection where several roads have 
sidewalks
and bicycle lanes, becomes very complicated if you map everything individually. 
For
roads with traffic signals it becomes even more complicated. Not to mention 
that it
could be avenues where you map each direction of the motor_vehicle road 
individually.

> And when the people adding that stuff will go away, who will maintain that 
> complexity, the volunteers ? The use of tags as you suggest would be much 
> cleaner and easier. The OSM database is used by a large community of 
> navigation apps that will all have to deal with this one way or another to 
> still provide meaningful navigation prompts that are not just like “walk on 
> path, in 100m turn left on path, in 300m turn right on path", perhaps by 
> filtering out these ways from their apps, I really don’t know. Otherwise 
> everybody will move to Google Maps which sure won’t bother with that stuff. 
> Anyhow, have to go back to self-quarantine, I feel a fever :-)
> 
> Happy mapping.
> 
>> On Apr 3, 2020, at 13:15, Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:
>>
>> Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca:
>>> It is not hard Justin, just inadequate. The app then tell you “turn right 
>>> on path”
>>> rather than “turn right on Main Street”. Close enough.
>>>
>>> I was assuming pedestrians can figure to use a sidewalk without it being 
>>> added to a
>>> map, but maybe that’s more difficult than I’d assumed.
>>
>>
>> Routing software might prefer roads with sidewalks.
>>
>> And if there is only sidewalks on one side of the road that might make a 
>> difference
>> for routing.
>>
>> But that is why we can tag roads with sidewalk=both/left/right
>>
>> Which I think is most of the time a much better solution.
>>
>> I have had to change or delete a lot of individual sidewalks in Canada 
>> because of
>> topology problems. But there is still a lot left.
>>
>> For example:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/138463840
>> and all the other sidewalks next to it.
>>
>> These sidewalks are not connected to anything. And that is a big problem.
>> If you start your walking journey from inside one of these blocks, you will 
>> not go
>> anywhere because the router will know that you are on a way that is not 
>> connected to
>> anything. No route to destination.
>> Or you get routes like this:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=42.99484%2C-81.18224%3B42.99590%2C-81.18204#map=18/42.99581/-81.17946
>>
>> I have experienced this IRL and it is very frustrating.
>>
>> Ottawa is better.
>> But consider a route like this:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=45.38337%2C-75.64155%3B45.38313%2C-75.64109
>>
>> That is not how you would actually visit you neighbor.
>> Adding a lot of driveways or paths connecting the sidewalk to the road helps.
>> But most real users would not let one meter of grass stop them from crossing 
>> the road.
>>
>> -- 
>> Niels Elgaard Larsen
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> 
> 


-- 
Niels Elgaard Larsen

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Clifford Snow]

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 10:46 AM Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca <
talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> This morning I checked some large cities namely New-York, Paris,
> Amsterdam, London, Berlin. Since OSM is best developed in Europe these
> capitals make sense. I just checked Tokyo, Shangai, Seoul, Sydney to sample
> Asia. None of them have this sidewalk mapping as separate ways. I however
> found a bit of that scheme in San-Francisco.  I am not sure where this idea
> is coming from, who is backing this implementation and who it does service
> to, but it sure is a mess in many ways. And when the people adding that
> stuff will go away, who will maintain that complexity, the volunteers ? The
> use of tags as you suggest would be much cleaner and easier. The OSM
> database is used by a large community of navigation apps that will all have
> to deal with this one way or another to still provide meaningful navigation
> prompts that are not just like “walk on path, in 100m turn left on path, in
> 300m turn right on path", perhaps by filtering out these ways from their
> apps, I really don’t know. Otherwise everybody will move to Google Maps
> which sure won’t bother with that stuff. Anyhow, have to go back to
> self-quarantine, I feel a fever :-)
>

I'm one of those that map sidewalks as separate ways. I started mapping
sidewalks as road attributes but was frustrated by the connection at
intersections. While mapping sidewalks as separate ways does add to the
density of urban areas, there is some beauty to its completeness.  The
University of Washington Taskar Center for Accessibility pushed the schema
[1] and developed a demonstration website https://AccessMap.io for Seattle.
Their purpose was to help people with limited mobility navigate streets,
hills and curb ramps. Seattle is a good example of where it's needed. Hills
are steep  and not all intersections have curb ramps making life difficult
for people in wheelchairs or like myself who hate climbing those
steep streets :-)

Moving to Google Maps doesn't help someone in a wheelchair. Their routing
for pedestrians includes stairs and doesn't consider steepness or curb
ramps. Guess there is no money in it.

As to bicycles using sidewalks, I add bicycle=yes + separated=* when it's
designated on the street otherwise I leave it to city regulations and norms
to decide if the sidewalk can be used for cyclists. Although I did have a
discussion with county and state personnel about a new roundabout. I had
the bike route using the roundabout since the bike route was on the
highway. The state and county wanted the cyclist to get off the highway and
take the pedestrian footways to bypass the roundabout. I mapped it the way
they wanted, but my guess is the cyclists will just use the roundabout.

Best,
Clifford


[1] opensidewalks.com
-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais]

We could use bicycle=dismount also, which is even better since it allows 
routing on short segments for access purposes when there is only a footway to a 
building entrance

> On Apr 3, 2020, at 14:09, John Whelan  wrote:
> 
> Since it is dependent on municipal bylaws then I think it should be 
> explicitly tagged.
> 
> Cheerio John
> 
> Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais wrote on 2020-04-03 2:05 PM:
>> The reason why we were asked to add them is for pedestrian security 
>> assessment and urban planning. When all sidewalks and crossing are mapped, 
>> we can measure crossing distances and estimate the probability of accidents, 
>> which can save lives when the cities add curb extensions (avancées de 
>> trottoirs). We use openstreetmap data to convince government officials that 
>> it is statistically better to take them into account when planning new 
>> neighbourhoods or enhance existing ones. Also, it allows us to get better 
>> precision and calculate penalties when routiong at traffic signals which 
>> must be crossed twice by pedestrian at some intersections. OpenStreetMap 
>> objective is to map what is there with the best precision available. When 
>> aerial photography was not precise enough for sidewalks, it was not feasible 
>> to add them, but now we get precise aerial photos that permit better 
>> representativity of the physical world. I can tell you that the amount of 
>> precision and completeness in openstreetmap data will increase rapidly in 
>> the coming years. And the COVID-19 pandemy will increase the need for 
>> precise and complete mapping of urban environments, so we must deal with it 
>> accordingly.
>> Mapping sidewalks as separate ways is now in the official wiki and has been 
>> accepted by the community by vote, so we must now find the best way to 
>> accomodate everyone. For now, I am just trying to know if we must add 
>> bicycle=no to them.
>> 
>> About the routing directions, we must add the street names to sidewalks (as 
>> we do in my team), otherwise like Martin said, routing engines will tell 
>> people to turn left, turn right instead of turn left on A street, then turn 
>> right on B street, etc.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 3, 2020, at 13:51, Harald Kliems >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 10:17 AM Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca 
>>> mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>>> What cities allow cycling on sidewalks anyway, seriously ? This sounds so 
>>> inadequate. That it is tolerated is one thing, but outright legal or 
>>> encouraged ? Makes no sense to me.
>>> In the US that's pretty common. For example here in Madison (Wisconsin), 
>>> sidewalk riding is generally allowed by ordinance, except where buildings 
>>> directly abut the sidewalk (I manually tag those as bicycle=no).
>>>  Harald.
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Sent from Postbox 
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[John Whelan]

Since it is dependent on municipal bylaws then I think it should be 
explicitly tagged.


Cheerio John

Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais wrote on 2020-04-03 2:05 PM:
The reason why we were asked to add them is for pedestrian security 
assessment and urban planning. When all sidewalks and crossing are 
mapped, we can measure crossing distances and estimate the probability 
of accidents, which can save lives when the cities add curb extensions 
(avancées de trottoirs). We use openstreetmap data to convince 
government officials that it is statistically better to take them into 
account when planning new neighbourhoods or enhance existing ones. 
Also, it allows us to get better precision and calculate penalties 
when routiong at traffic signals which must be crossed twice by 
pedestrian at some intersections. OpenStreetMap objective is to map 
what is there with the best precision available. When aerial 
photography was not precise enough for sidewalks, it was not feasible 
to add them, but now we get precise aerial photos that permit better 
representativity of the physical world. I can tell you that the amount 
of precision and completeness in openstreetmap data will increase 
rapidly in the coming years. And the COVID-19 pandemy will increase 
the need for precise and complete mapping of urban environments, so we 
must deal with it accordingly.
Mapping sidewalks as separate ways is now in the official wiki and has 
been accepted by the community by vote, so we must now find the best 
way to accomodate everyone. For now, I am just trying to know if we 
must add bicycle=no to them.


About the routing directions, we must add the street names to 
sidewalks (as we do in my team), otherwise like Martin said, routing 
engines will tell people to turn left, turn right instead of turn left 
on A street, then turn right on B street, etc.






On Apr 3, 2020, at 13:51, Harald Kliems > wrote:




On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 10:17 AM Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca 
mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:


What cities allow cycling on sidewalks anyway, seriously ? This
sounds so inadequate. That it is tolerated is one thing, but
outright legal or encouraged ? Makes no sense to me.

In the US that's pretty common. For example here in Madison 
(Wisconsin), sidewalk riding is generally allowed by ordinance, 
except where buildings directly abut the sidewalk (I manually tag 
those as bicycle=no).

 Harald.
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca




___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


--
Sent from Postbox 
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais]

The reason why we were asked to add them is for pedestrian security assessment 
and urban planning. When all sidewalks and crossing are mapped, we can measure 
crossing distances and estimate the probability of accidents, which can save 
lives when the cities add curb extensions (avancées de trottoirs). We use 
openstreetmap data to convince government officials that it is statistically 
better to take them into account when planning new neighbourhoods or enhance 
existing ones. Also, it allows us to get better precision and calculate 
penalties when routiong at traffic signals which must be crossed twice by 
pedestrian at some intersections. OpenStreetMap objective is to map what is 
there with the best precision available. When aerial photography was not 
precise enough for sidewalks, it was not feasible to add them, but now we get 
precise aerial photos that permit better representativity of the physical 
world. I can tell you that the amount of precision and completeness in 
openstreetmap data will increase rapidly in the coming years. And the COVID-19 
pandemy will increase the need for precise and complete mapping of urban 
environments, so we must deal with it accordingly.
Mapping sidewalks as separate ways is now in the official wiki and has been 
accepted by the community by vote, so we must now find the best way to 
accomodate everyone. For now, I am just trying to know if we must add 
bicycle=no to them.

About the routing directions, we must add the street names to sidewalks (as we 
do in my team), otherwise like Martin said, routing engines will tell people to 
turn left, turn right instead of turn left on A street, then turn right on B 
street, etc.





> On Apr 3, 2020, at 13:51, Harald Kliems  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 10:17 AM Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca 
> mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
> What cities allow cycling on sidewalks anyway, seriously ? This sounds so 
> inadequate. That it is tolerated is one thing, but outright legal or 
> encouraged ? Makes no sense to me.
> In the US that's pretty common. For example here in Madison (Wisconsin), 
> sidewalk riding is generally allowed by ordinance, except where buildings 
> directly abut the sidewalk (I manually tag those as bicycle=no).
>  Harald.
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Harald Kliems]

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 10:17 AM Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca <
talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> What cities allow cycling on sidewalks anyway, seriously ? This sounds so
> inadequate. That it is tolerated is one thing, but outright legal or
> encouraged ? Makes no sense to me.
>
In the US that's pretty common. For example here in Madison (Wisconsin),
sidewalk riding is generally allowed by ordinance, except where buildings
directly abut the sidewalk (I manually tag those as bicycle=no).
 Harald.
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca]

This morning I checked some large cities namely New-York, Paris, Amsterdam, 
London, Berlin. Since OSM is best developed in Europe these capitals make 
sense. I just checked Tokyo, Shangai, Seoul, Sydney to sample Asia. None of 
them have this sidewalk mapping as separate ways. I however found a bit of that 
scheme in San-Francisco.  I am not sure where this idea is coming from, who is 
backing this implementation and who it does service to, but it sure is a mess 
in many ways. And when the people adding that stuff will go away, who will 
maintain that complexity, the volunteers ? The use of tags as you suggest would 
be much cleaner and easier. The OSM database is used by a large community of 
navigation apps that will all have to deal with this one way or another to 
still provide meaningful navigation prompts that are not just like “walk on 
path, in 100m turn left on path, in 300m turn right on path", perhaps by 
filtering out these ways from their apps, I really don’t know. Otherwise 
everybody will move to Google Maps which sure won’t bother with that stuff. 
Anyhow, have to go back to self-quarantine, I feel a fever :-)

Happy mapping.

> On Apr 3, 2020, at 13:15, Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:
> 
> Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca:
>> It is not hard Justin, just inadequate. The app then tell you “turn right on 
>> path”
>> rather than “turn right on Main Street”. Close enough.
>> 
>> I was assuming pedestrians can figure to use a sidewalk without it being 
>> added to a
>> map, but maybe that’s more difficult than I’d assumed.
> 
> 
> Routing software might prefer roads with sidewalks.
> 
> And if there is only sidewalks on one side of the road that might make a 
> difference
> for routing.
> 
> But that is why we can tag roads with sidewalk=both/left/right
> 
> Which I think is most of the time a much better solution.
> 
> I have had to change or delete a lot of individual sidewalks in Canada 
> because of
> topology problems. But there is still a lot left.
> 
> For example:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/138463840
> and all the other sidewalks next to it.
> 
> These sidewalks are not connected to anything. And that is a big problem.
> If you start your walking journey from inside one of these blocks, you will 
> not go
> anywhere because the router will know that you are on a way that is not 
> connected to
> anything. No route to destination.
> Or you get routes like this:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=42.99484%2C-81.18224%3B42.99590%2C-81.18204#map=18/42.99581/-81.17946
> 
> I have experienced this IRL and it is very frustrating.
> 
> Ottawa is better.
> But consider a route like this:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=45.38337%2C-75.64155%3B45.38313%2C-75.64109
> 
> That is not how you would actually visit you neighbor.
> Adding a lot of driveways or paths connecting the sidewalk to the road helps.
> But most real users would not let one meter of grass stop them from crossing 
> the road.
> 
> -- 
> Niels Elgaard Larsen
> 
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca:
> It is not hard Justin, just inadequate. The app then tell you “turn right on 
> path”
> rather than “turn right on Main Street”. Close enough.
> 
> I was assuming pedestrians can figure to use a sidewalk without it being 
> added to a
> map, but maybe that’s more difficult than I’d assumed.


Routing software might prefer roads with sidewalks.

And if there is only sidewalks on one side of the road that might make a 
difference
for routing.

But that is why we can tag roads with sidewalk=both/left/right

Which I think is most of the time a much better solution.

I have had to change or delete a lot of individual sidewalks in Canada because 
of
topology problems. But there is still a lot left.

For example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/138463840
and all the other sidewalks next to it.

These sidewalks are not connected to anything. And that is a big problem.
If you start your walking journey from inside one of these blocks, you will not 
go
anywhere because the router will know that you are on a way that is not 
connected to
anything. No route to destination.
Or you get routes like this:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=42.99484%2C-81.18224%3B42.99590%2C-81.18204#map=18/42.99581/-81.17946

I have experienced this IRL and it is very frustrating.

Ottawa is better.
But consider a route like this:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=45.38337%2C-75.64155%3B45.38313%2C-75.64109

That is not how you would actually visit you neighbor.
Adding a lot of driveways or paths connecting the sidewalk to the road helps.
But most real users would not let one meter of grass stop them from crossing 
the road.

-- 
Niels Elgaard Larsen

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Kevin Farrugia]

Correct - it's a municipal bylaw thing. For example, Burlington explicitly
allows bikes on sidewalks except downtown, while next door in Oakville
riding on sidewalks isn't allowed anywhere. Brampton allows bikes on
sidewalks if the wheel size is less than a certain size so that kids can
legally ride on sidewalks.

It's quite a patchwork/mess and best to avoid sidewalks in almost all cases
- adding them to the map in the first place or using them in routing when
not required...

---
Kevin/Kevo

On Fri., Apr. 3, 2020, 11:37 a.m. Justin Tracey,  wrote:

> I was assuming cyclists can figure out a turn indication onto a sidewalk
> should instead be interpreted as onto the adjacent street; maybe that's
> more difficult than I'd assumed.
>
> The Region of Waterloo allows bicycles on sidewalks in some situations,
> but I believe at least most of the constituent cities in it do not. In any
> case, it's certainly not provincial law for Ontario.
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 3:16 PM Martin Chalifoux <
> martin.chalif...@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>> When you follow a route with a riding app, you get turn prompts that are
>> then incorrect because a sidewalk is selected rather than the street. The
>> route is not just a line on a map, it becomes a set of turn-by-turn
>> directions eventually.
>>
>> What cities allow cycling on sidewalks anyway, seriously ? This sounds so
>> inadequate. That it is tolerated is one thing, but outright legal or
>> encouraged ? Makes no sense to me.
>>
>> On Apr 3, 2020, at 11:11, Justin Tracey  wrote:
>>
>> iD leaves all access tags undefined for sidewalks by default, what you're
>> seeing are the *implied* values (specifically, highway=footway implies
>> motor_vehicle=no, but does not make any implication about bicycle=*; scroll
>> down to the raw tags and you'll see both are left undefined). The reason
>> sidewalks cannot imply bicycle=no is that's not true in all legal
>> jurisdictions. The question is then whether routing engines should take
>> legal jurisdiction into account when deciding the default value for
>> bicycle=*, the way they do for maxspeed=*. The problem is that maxspeed=*
>> has defaults on a uniform provincial granularity, but bicycle=* has an
>> arbitrary granularity (any particular sidewalk could be subject to federal,
>> provincial, regional, or city laws).
>>
>> Personally, my approach has been noting when routing engines are taking
>> advantage of sidewalks they shouldn't be able to, and tagging those. Most
>> sidewalks run parallel to roads, and I assume cyclists/data consumers know
>> the respective rules they should be following, even if the routing engine
>> doesn't.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:51 PM Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca <
>> talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe the issue is that in ID and I assume that is the Canadian default
>>> value, the bicycle access tag is left undefined. Why isn’t that tag
>>> defaulted to no as it is for cars ? Then an explicit yes tag can be added
>>> only to the odd place where cycling on a sidewalk is allowed. We are
>>> talking routing engines here, not the kid that plays on the street.
>>>
>>> On Apr 3, 2020, at 10:46, Nate Wessel  wrote:
>>>
>>> Which routing engines are causing problems exactly? Routing a bicycle on
>>> a sidewalk may be appropriate/reasonable in some cases and over short
>>> distances where one could be instructed to dismount and walk. I'd be
>>> interested to see some of the problematic routes that are being suggested
>>> to see if there isn't a more elegant way of resolving this.
>>>
>>> I personally only use explicit access tags where there is clear signage
>>> indicating some type of special access restriction. Otherwise the default
>>> should be assumed. Routing engines *should* be able to accommodate
>>> region differences in default values without needing to manually tag
>>> millions of ways. Whether they can or do allow that is a problem for the
>>> people developing the routing engines.
>>>
>>> Nate Wessel, PhD
>>> Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
>>> NateWessel.com 
>>> On 2020-04-03 10:39 a.m., John Whelan wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd recommend bicycle=no and I live in Ottawa.  In Ottawa footpaths that
>>> connect in general are bicycle=yes as they come under municipal regulation
>>> but a sidewalk on a highway comes under provincial legislation which bans
>>> bicycles on sidewalks.  Sparks street is fun I think you are not permitted
>>> to ride your bicycle but I'm unsure if this is provincial, municipal or it
>>> might even be NCC which is federal of course.
>>>
>>> In the UK they are banned by law but in certain cities the Chief
>>> Constable has stated the law will not be enforced within the police force
>>> boundaries as a letter of interpretation.  It might be nice for Ottawa to
>>> do the same sometime but there again we have City of Ottawa police, OPP,
>>> RCMP and of course the PPS.
>>>
>>> Cheerio John
>>>
>>> James wrote on 2020-04-03 10:25 AM:

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca]

Sure. Kids however do not use OSM and maps and routing. So what should OSM do 
for it’s users ?

> On Apr 3, 2020, at 11:43, James  wrote:
> 
> For example: Toronto has a bylaw if you are over 14 years old, you are not 
> allowed to ride bike ever on sidewalk, if you are 14 and under and feel 
> unsafe on road, you are allowed
> 
> At a certain point you need to use your judgement and know local laws
> 
> On Fri., Apr. 3, 2020, 11:37 a.m. Justin Tracey,  > wrote:
> I was assuming cyclists can figure out a turn indication onto a sidewalk 
> should instead be interpreted as onto the adjacent street; maybe that's more 
> difficult than I'd assumed.
> 
> The Region of Waterloo allows bicycles on sidewalks in some situations, but I 
> believe at least most of the constituent cities in it do not. In any case, 
> it's certainly not provincial law for Ontario.
> 
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 3:16 PM Martin Chalifoux  > wrote:
> When you follow a route with a riding app, you get turn prompts that are then 
> incorrect because a sidewalk is selected rather than the street. The route is 
> not just a line on a map, it becomes a set of turn-by-turn directions 
> eventually.
> 
> What cities allow cycling on sidewalks anyway, seriously ? This sounds so 
> inadequate. That it is tolerated is one thing, but outright legal or 
> encouraged ? Makes no sense to me.
> 
>> On Apr 3, 2020, at 11:11, Justin Tracey > > wrote:
>> 
>> iD leaves all access tags undefined for sidewalks by default, what you're 
>> seeing are the implied values (specifically, highway=footway implies 
>> motor_vehicle=no, but does not make any implication about bicycle=*; scroll 
>> down to the raw tags and you'll see both are left undefined). The reason 
>> sidewalks cannot imply bicycle=no is that's not true in all legal 
>> jurisdictions. The question is then whether routing engines should take 
>> legal jurisdiction into account when deciding the default value for 
>> bicycle=*, the way they do for maxspeed=*. The problem is that maxspeed=* 
>> has defaults on a uniform provincial granularity, but bicycle=* has an 
>> arbitrary granularity (any particular sidewalk could be subject to federal, 
>> provincial, regional, or city laws).
>> 
>> Personally, my approach has been noting when routing engines are taking 
>> advantage of sidewalks they shouldn't be able to, and tagging those. Most 
>> sidewalks run parallel to roads, and I assume cyclists/data consumers know 
>> the respective rules they should be following, even if the routing engine 
>> doesn't.
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:51 PM Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca 
>> mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>> Maybe the issue is that in ID and I assume that is the Canadian default 
>> value, the bicycle access tag is left undefined. Why isn’t that tag 
>> defaulted to no as it is for cars ? Then an explicit yes tag can be added 
>> only to the odd place where cycling on a sidewalk is allowed. We are talking 
>> routing engines here, not the kid that plays on the street.
>> 
>>> On Apr 3, 2020, at 10:46, Nate Wessel >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Which routing engines are causing problems exactly? Routing a bicycle on a 
>>> sidewalk may be appropriate/reasonable in some cases and over short 
>>> distances where one could be instructed to dismount and walk. I'd be 
>>> interested to see some of the problematic routes that are being suggested 
>>> to see if there isn't a more elegant way of resolving this. 
>>> 
>>> I personally only use explicit access tags where there is clear signage 
>>> indicating some type of special access restriction. Otherwise the default 
>>> should be assumed. Routing engines should be able to accommodate region 
>>> differences in default values without needing to manually tag millions of 
>>> ways. Whether they can or do allow that is a problem for the people 
>>> developing the routing engines. 
>>> 
>>> Nate Wessel, PhD
>>> Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
>>> NateWessel.com 
>>> On 2020-04-03 10:39 a.m., John Whelan wrote:
 I'd recommend bicycle=no and I live in Ottawa.  In Ottawa footpaths that 
 connect in general are bicycle=yes as they come under municipal regulation 
 but a sidewalk on a highway comes under provincial legislation which bans 
 bicycles on sidewalks.  Sparks street is fun I think you are not permitted 
 to ride your bicycle but I'm unsure if this is provincial, municipal or it 
 might even be NCC which is federal of course.
 
 In the UK they are banned by law but in certain cities the Chief Constable 
 has stated the law will not be enforced within the police force boundaries 
 as a letter of interpretation.  It might be nice for Ottawa to do the same 
 sometime but there again we have City of Ottawa police, OPP, RCMP and of 
 course the PPS.
 
 

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[James]

For example: Toronto has a bylaw if you are over 14 years old, you are not
allowed to ride bike ever on sidewalk, if you are 14 and under and feel
unsafe on road, you are allowed

At a certain point you need to use your judgement and know local laws

On Fri., Apr. 3, 2020, 11:37 a.m. Justin Tracey,  wrote:

> I was assuming cyclists can figure out a turn indication onto a sidewalk
> should instead be interpreted as onto the adjacent street; maybe that's
> more difficult than I'd assumed.
>
> The Region of Waterloo allows bicycles on sidewalks in some situations,
> but I believe at least most of the constituent cities in it do not. In any
> case, it's certainly not provincial law for Ontario.
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 3:16 PM Martin Chalifoux <
> martin.chalif...@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>> When you follow a route with a riding app, you get turn prompts that are
>> then incorrect because a sidewalk is selected rather than the street. The
>> route is not just a line on a map, it becomes a set of turn-by-turn
>> directions eventually.
>>
>> What cities allow cycling on sidewalks anyway, seriously ? This sounds so
>> inadequate. That it is tolerated is one thing, but outright legal or
>> encouraged ? Makes no sense to me.
>>
>> On Apr 3, 2020, at 11:11, Justin Tracey  wrote:
>>
>> iD leaves all access tags undefined for sidewalks by default, what you're
>> seeing are the *implied* values (specifically, highway=footway implies
>> motor_vehicle=no, but does not make any implication about bicycle=*; scroll
>> down to the raw tags and you'll see both are left undefined). The reason
>> sidewalks cannot imply bicycle=no is that's not true in all legal
>> jurisdictions. The question is then whether routing engines should take
>> legal jurisdiction into account when deciding the default value for
>> bicycle=*, the way they do for maxspeed=*. The problem is that maxspeed=*
>> has defaults on a uniform provincial granularity, but bicycle=* has an
>> arbitrary granularity (any particular sidewalk could be subject to federal,
>> provincial, regional, or city laws).
>>
>> Personally, my approach has been noting when routing engines are taking
>> advantage of sidewalks they shouldn't be able to, and tagging those. Most
>> sidewalks run parallel to roads, and I assume cyclists/data consumers know
>> the respective rules they should be following, even if the routing engine
>> doesn't.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:51 PM Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca <
>> talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe the issue is that in ID and I assume that is the Canadian default
>>> value, the bicycle access tag is left undefined. Why isn’t that tag
>>> defaulted to no as it is for cars ? Then an explicit yes tag can be added
>>> only to the odd place where cycling on a sidewalk is allowed. We are
>>> talking routing engines here, not the kid that plays on the street.
>>>
>>> On Apr 3, 2020, at 10:46, Nate Wessel  wrote:
>>>
>>> Which routing engines are causing problems exactly? Routing a bicycle on
>>> a sidewalk may be appropriate/reasonable in some cases and over short
>>> distances where one could be instructed to dismount and walk. I'd be
>>> interested to see some of the problematic routes that are being suggested
>>> to see if there isn't a more elegant way of resolving this.
>>>
>>> I personally only use explicit access tags where there is clear signage
>>> indicating some type of special access restriction. Otherwise the default
>>> should be assumed. Routing engines *should* be able to accommodate
>>> region differences in default values without needing to manually tag
>>> millions of ways. Whether they can or do allow that is a problem for the
>>> people developing the routing engines.
>>>
>>> Nate Wessel, PhD
>>> Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
>>> NateWessel.com 
>>> On 2020-04-03 10:39 a.m., John Whelan wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd recommend bicycle=no and I live in Ottawa.  In Ottawa footpaths that
>>> connect in general are bicycle=yes as they come under municipal regulation
>>> but a sidewalk on a highway comes under provincial legislation which bans
>>> bicycles on sidewalks.  Sparks street is fun I think you are not permitted
>>> to ride your bicycle but I'm unsure if this is provincial, municipal or it
>>> might even be NCC which is federal of course.
>>>
>>> In the UK they are banned by law but in certain cities the Chief
>>> Constable has stated the law will not be enforced within the police force
>>> boundaries as a letter of interpretation.  It might be nice for Ottawa to
>>> do the same sometime but there again we have City of Ottawa police, OPP,
>>> RCMP and of course the PPS.
>>>
>>> Cheerio John
>>>
>>> James wrote on 2020-04-03 10:25 AM:
>>>
>>> I don't think it's more tagging for the renderer as much as it's being
>>> more specific(more data) to specify a abstract view: without knowledge of
>>> Canadian/Provincial/Municipal laws about biking on sidewalks.
>>>
>>> I think Montreal and 

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca]

It is not hard Justin, just inadequate. The app then tell you “turn right on 
path” rather than “turn right on Main Street”. Close enough.

I was assuming pedestrians can figure to use a sidewalk without it being added 
to a map, but maybe that’s more difficult than I’d assumed.

> On Apr 3, 2020, at 11:36, Justin Tracey  wrote:
> 
> I was assuming cyclists can figure out a turn indication onto a sidewalk 
> should instead be interpreted as onto the adjacent street; maybe that's more 
> difficult than I'd assumed.
> 
> The Region of Waterloo allows bicycles on sidewalks in some situations, but I 
> believe at least most of the constituent cities in it do not. In any case, 
> it's certainly not provincial law for Ontario.
> 
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 3:16 PM Martin Chalifoux  > wrote:
> When you follow a route with a riding app, you get turn prompts that are then 
> incorrect because a sidewalk is selected rather than the street. The route is 
> not just a line on a map, it becomes a set of turn-by-turn directions 
> eventually.
> 
> What cities allow cycling on sidewalks anyway, seriously ? This sounds so 
> inadequate. That it is tolerated is one thing, but outright legal or 
> encouraged ? Makes no sense to me.
> 
>> On Apr 3, 2020, at 11:11, Justin Tracey > > wrote:
>> 
>> iD leaves all access tags undefined for sidewalks by default, what you're 
>> seeing are the implied values (specifically, highway=footway implies 
>> motor_vehicle=no, but does not make any implication about bicycle=*; scroll 
>> down to the raw tags and you'll see both are left undefined). The reason 
>> sidewalks cannot imply bicycle=no is that's not true in all legal 
>> jurisdictions. The question is then whether routing engines should take 
>> legal jurisdiction into account when deciding the default value for 
>> bicycle=*, the way they do for maxspeed=*. The problem is that maxspeed=* 
>> has defaults on a uniform provincial granularity, but bicycle=* has an 
>> arbitrary granularity (any particular sidewalk could be subject to federal, 
>> provincial, regional, or city laws).
>> 
>> Personally, my approach has been noting when routing engines are taking 
>> advantage of sidewalks they shouldn't be able to, and tagging those. Most 
>> sidewalks run parallel to roads, and I assume cyclists/data consumers know 
>> the respective rules they should be following, even if the routing engine 
>> doesn't.
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:51 PM Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca 
>> mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>> Maybe the issue is that in ID and I assume that is the Canadian default 
>> value, the bicycle access tag is left undefined. Why isn’t that tag 
>> defaulted to no as it is for cars ? Then an explicit yes tag can be added 
>> only to the odd place where cycling on a sidewalk is allowed. We are talking 
>> routing engines here, not the kid that plays on the street.
>> 
>>> On Apr 3, 2020, at 10:46, Nate Wessel >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Which routing engines are causing problems exactly? Routing a bicycle on a 
>>> sidewalk may be appropriate/reasonable in some cases and over short 
>>> distances where one could be instructed to dismount and walk. I'd be 
>>> interested to see some of the problematic routes that are being suggested 
>>> to see if there isn't a more elegant way of resolving this. 
>>> 
>>> I personally only use explicit access tags where there is clear signage 
>>> indicating some type of special access restriction. Otherwise the default 
>>> should be assumed. Routing engines should be able to accommodate region 
>>> differences in default values without needing to manually tag millions of 
>>> ways. Whether they can or do allow that is a problem for the people 
>>> developing the routing engines. 
>>> 
>>> Nate Wessel, PhD
>>> Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
>>> NateWessel.com 
>>> On 2020-04-03 10:39 a.m., John Whelan wrote:
 I'd recommend bicycle=no and I live in Ottawa.  In Ottawa footpaths that 
 connect in general are bicycle=yes as they come under municipal regulation 
 but a sidewalk on a highway comes under provincial legislation which bans 
 bicycles on sidewalks.  Sparks street is fun I think you are not permitted 
 to ride your bicycle but I'm unsure if this is provincial, municipal or it 
 might even be NCC which is federal of course.
 
 In the UK they are banned by law but in certain cities the Chief Constable 
 has stated the law will not be enforced within the police force boundaries 
 as a letter of interpretation.  It might be nice for Ottawa to do the same 
 sometime but there again we have City of Ottawa police, OPP, RCMP and of 
 course the PPS.
 
 Cheerio John
 
 James wrote on 2020-04-03 10:25 AM:
> I don't think it's more tagging for the renderer as much as it's being 
> more specific(more 

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Justin Tracey]

I was assuming cyclists can figure out a turn indication onto a sidewalk
should instead be interpreted as onto the adjacent street; maybe that's
more difficult than I'd assumed.

The Region of Waterloo allows bicycles on sidewalks in some situations, but
I believe at least most of the constituent cities in it do not. In any
case, it's certainly not provincial law for Ontario.

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 3:16 PM Martin Chalifoux 
wrote:

> When you follow a route with a riding app, you get turn prompts that are
> then incorrect because a sidewalk is selected rather than the street. The
> route is not just a line on a map, it becomes a set of turn-by-turn
> directions eventually.
>
> What cities allow cycling on sidewalks anyway, seriously ? This sounds so
> inadequate. That it is tolerated is one thing, but outright legal or
> encouraged ? Makes no sense to me.
>
> On Apr 3, 2020, at 11:11, Justin Tracey  wrote:
>
> iD leaves all access tags undefined for sidewalks by default, what you're
> seeing are the *implied* values (specifically, highway=footway implies
> motor_vehicle=no, but does not make any implication about bicycle=*; scroll
> down to the raw tags and you'll see both are left undefined). The reason
> sidewalks cannot imply bicycle=no is that's not true in all legal
> jurisdictions. The question is then whether routing engines should take
> legal jurisdiction into account when deciding the default value for
> bicycle=*, the way they do for maxspeed=*. The problem is that maxspeed=*
> has defaults on a uniform provincial granularity, but bicycle=* has an
> arbitrary granularity (any particular sidewalk could be subject to federal,
> provincial, regional, or city laws).
>
> Personally, my approach has been noting when routing engines are taking
> advantage of sidewalks they shouldn't be able to, and tagging those. Most
> sidewalks run parallel to roads, and I assume cyclists/data consumers know
> the respective rules they should be following, even if the routing engine
> doesn't.
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:51 PM Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca <
> talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> Maybe the issue is that in ID and I assume that is the Canadian default
>> value, the bicycle access tag is left undefined. Why isn’t that tag
>> defaulted to no as it is for cars ? Then an explicit yes tag can be added
>> only to the odd place where cycling on a sidewalk is allowed. We are
>> talking routing engines here, not the kid that plays on the street.
>>
>> On Apr 3, 2020, at 10:46, Nate Wessel  wrote:
>>
>> Which routing engines are causing problems exactly? Routing a bicycle on
>> a sidewalk may be appropriate/reasonable in some cases and over short
>> distances where one could be instructed to dismount and walk. I'd be
>> interested to see some of the problematic routes that are being suggested
>> to see if there isn't a more elegant way of resolving this.
>>
>> I personally only use explicit access tags where there is clear signage
>> indicating some type of special access restriction. Otherwise the default
>> should be assumed. Routing engines *should* be able to accommodate
>> region differences in default values without needing to manually tag
>> millions of ways. Whether they can or do allow that is a problem for the
>> people developing the routing engines.
>>
>> Nate Wessel, PhD
>> Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
>> NateWessel.com 
>> On 2020-04-03 10:39 a.m., John Whelan wrote:
>>
>> I'd recommend bicycle=no and I live in Ottawa.  In Ottawa footpaths that
>> connect in general are bicycle=yes as they come under municipal regulation
>> but a sidewalk on a highway comes under provincial legislation which bans
>> bicycles on sidewalks.  Sparks street is fun I think you are not permitted
>> to ride your bicycle but I'm unsure if this is provincial, municipal or it
>> might even be NCC which is federal of course.
>>
>> In the UK they are banned by law but in certain cities the Chief
>> Constable has stated the law will not be enforced within the police force
>> boundaries as a letter of interpretation.  It might be nice for Ottawa to
>> do the same sometime but there again we have City of Ottawa police, OPP,
>> RCMP and of course the PPS.
>>
>> Cheerio John
>>
>> James wrote on 2020-04-03 10:25 AM:
>>
>> I don't think it's more tagging for the renderer as much as it's being
>> more specific(more data) to specify a abstract view: without knowledge of
>> Canadian/Provincial/Municipal laws about biking on sidewalks.
>>
>> I think Montreal and Gatineau are more enforced as Ottawa it is illegal
>> to bike on the sidewalk, but people are still doing it, but that's beside
>> the point.
>>
>> On Fri., Apr. 3, 2020, 10:18 a.m. Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais via Talk-ca, <
>> talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I would like to start a discussion on how we should deal with sidewalks
>>> tagged separately, like it is is done in downtown Ottawa and like we are
>>> starting to 

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca]

When you follow a route with a riding app, you get turn prompts that are then 
incorrect because a sidewalk is selected rather than the street. The route is 
not just a line on a map, it becomes a set of turn-by-turn directions 
eventually.

What cities allow cycling on sidewalks anyway, seriously ? This sounds so 
inadequate. That it is tolerated is one thing, but outright legal or encouraged 
? Makes no sense to me.

> On Apr 3, 2020, at 11:11, Justin Tracey  wrote:
> 
> iD leaves all access tags undefined for sidewalks by default, what you're 
> seeing are the implied values (specifically, highway=footway implies 
> motor_vehicle=no, but does not make any implication about bicycle=*; scroll 
> down to the raw tags and you'll see both are left undefined). The reason 
> sidewalks cannot imply bicycle=no is that's not true in all legal 
> jurisdictions. The question is then whether routing engines should take legal 
> jurisdiction into account when deciding the default value for bicycle=*, the 
> way they do for maxspeed=*. The problem is that maxspeed=* has defaults on a 
> uniform provincial granularity, but bicycle=* has an arbitrary granularity 
> (any particular sidewalk could be subject to federal, provincial, regional, 
> or city laws).
> 
> Personally, my approach has been noting when routing engines are taking 
> advantage of sidewalks they shouldn't be able to, and tagging those. Most 
> sidewalks run parallel to roads, and I assume cyclists/data consumers know 
> the respective rules they should be following, even if the routing engine 
> doesn't.
> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:51 PM Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca 
> mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
> Maybe the issue is that in ID and I assume that is the Canadian default 
> value, the bicycle access tag is left undefined. Why isn’t that tag defaulted 
> to no as it is for cars ? Then an explicit yes tag can be added only to the 
> odd place where cycling on a sidewalk is allowed. We are talking routing 
> engines here, not the kid that plays on the street.
> 
>> On Apr 3, 2020, at 10:46, Nate Wessel > > wrote:
>> 
>> Which routing engines are causing problems exactly? Routing a bicycle on a 
>> sidewalk may be appropriate/reasonable in some cases and over short 
>> distances where one could be instructed to dismount and walk. I'd be 
>> interested to see some of the problematic routes that are being suggested to 
>> see if there isn't a more elegant way of resolving this. 
>> 
>> I personally only use explicit access tags where there is clear signage 
>> indicating some type of special access restriction. Otherwise the default 
>> should be assumed. Routing engines should be able to accommodate region 
>> differences in default values without needing to manually tag millions of 
>> ways. Whether they can or do allow that is a problem for the people 
>> developing the routing engines. 
>> 
>> Nate Wessel, PhD
>> Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
>> NateWessel.com 
>> On 2020-04-03 10:39 a.m., John Whelan wrote:
>>> I'd recommend bicycle=no and I live in Ottawa.  In Ottawa footpaths that 
>>> connect in general are bicycle=yes as they come under municipal regulation 
>>> but a sidewalk on a highway comes under provincial legislation which bans 
>>> bicycles on sidewalks.  Sparks street is fun I think you are not permitted 
>>> to ride your bicycle but I'm unsure if this is provincial, municipal or it 
>>> might even be NCC which is federal of course.
>>> 
>>> In the UK they are banned by law but in certain cities the Chief Constable 
>>> has stated the law will not be enforced within the police force boundaries 
>>> as a letter of interpretation.  It might be nice for Ottawa to do the same 
>>> sometime but there again we have City of Ottawa police, OPP, RCMP and of 
>>> course the PPS.
>>> 
>>> Cheerio John
>>> 
>>> James wrote on 2020-04-03 10:25 AM:
 I don't think it's more tagging for the renderer as much as it's being 
 more specific(more data) to specify a abstract view: without knowledge of 
 Canadian/Provincial/Municipal laws about biking on sidewalks. 
 
 I think Montreal and Gatineau are more enforced as Ottawa it is illegal to 
 bike on the sidewalk, but people are still doing it, but that's beside the 
 point.
 
 On Fri., Apr. 3, 2020, 10:18 a.m. Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais via Talk-ca, 
 mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
 Hi!
 
 I would like to start a discussion on how we should deal with sidewalks 
 tagged separately, like it is is done in downtown Ottawa and like we are 
 starting to do in the Montreal region.
 
 The issue is that by default highway=footway with or without 
 footway=sidewalk should have an implicit bicycle=no by default according 
 to this page: 
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions
  
 

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Justin Tracey]

iD leaves all access tags undefined for sidewalks by default, what you're
seeing are the *implied* values (specifically, highway=footway implies
motor_vehicle=no, but does not make any implication about bicycle=*; scroll
down to the raw tags and you'll see both are left undefined). The reason
sidewalks cannot imply bicycle=no is that's not true in all legal
jurisdictions. The question is then whether routing engines should take
legal jurisdiction into account when deciding the default value for
bicycle=*, the way they do for maxspeed=*. The problem is that maxspeed=*
has defaults on a uniform provincial granularity, but bicycle=* has an
arbitrary granularity (any particular sidewalk could be subject to federal,
provincial, regional, or city laws).

Personally, my approach has been noting when routing engines are taking
advantage of sidewalks they shouldn't be able to, and tagging those. Most
sidewalks run parallel to roads, and I assume cyclists/data consumers know
the respective rules they should be following, even if the routing engine
doesn't.

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:51 PM Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca <
talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Maybe the issue is that in ID and I assume that is the Canadian default
> value, the bicycle access tag is left undefined. Why isn’t that tag
> defaulted to no as it is for cars ? Then an explicit yes tag can be added
> only to the odd place where cycling on a sidewalk is allowed. We are
> talking routing engines here, not the kid that plays on the street.
>
> On Apr 3, 2020, at 10:46, Nate Wessel  wrote:
>
> Which routing engines are causing problems exactly? Routing a bicycle on a
> sidewalk may be appropriate/reasonable in some cases and over short
> distances where one could be instructed to dismount and walk. I'd be
> interested to see some of the problematic routes that are being suggested
> to see if there isn't a more elegant way of resolving this.
>
> I personally only use explicit access tags where there is clear signage
> indicating some type of special access restriction. Otherwise the default
> should be assumed. Routing engines *should* be able to accommodate region
> differences in default values without needing to manually tag millions of
> ways. Whether they can or do allow that is a problem for the people
> developing the routing engines.
>
> Nate Wessel, PhD
> Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
> NateWessel.com 
> On 2020-04-03 10:39 a.m., John Whelan wrote:
>
> I'd recommend bicycle=no and I live in Ottawa.  In Ottawa footpaths that
> connect in general are bicycle=yes as they come under municipal regulation
> but a sidewalk on a highway comes under provincial legislation which bans
> bicycles on sidewalks.  Sparks street is fun I think you are not permitted
> to ride your bicycle but I'm unsure if this is provincial, municipal or it
> might even be NCC which is federal of course.
>
> In the UK they are banned by law but in certain cities the Chief Constable
> has stated the law will not be enforced within the police force boundaries
> as a letter of interpretation.  It might be nice for Ottawa to do the same
> sometime but there again we have City of Ottawa police, OPP, RCMP and of
> course the PPS.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> James wrote on 2020-04-03 10:25 AM:
>
> I don't think it's more tagging for the renderer as much as it's being
> more specific(more data) to specify a abstract view: without knowledge of
> Canadian/Provincial/Municipal laws about biking on sidewalks.
>
> I think Montreal and Gatineau are more enforced as Ottawa it is illegal to
> bike on the sidewalk, but people are still doing it, but that's beside the
> point.
>
> On Fri., Apr. 3, 2020, 10:18 a.m. Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais via Talk-ca, <
> talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I would like to start a discussion on how we should deal with sidewalks
>> tagged separately, like it is is done in downtown Ottawa and like we are
>> starting to do in the Montreal region.
>>
>> The issue is that by default highway=footway with or without
>> footway=sidewalk should have an implicit bicycle=no by default according to
>> this page:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions
>>
>> However, some osm users told me I should tag them with bicycle=no
>> everywhere because routing engines use sidewalks for bicycle routing which
>> is illegal in most part of Canada.
>>
>> What are your thoughts on this ? Should we adapt to routing engines or
>> should routing engines fix the issue themselves?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing 
> listTalk-ca@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
> --
> Sent from Postbox 
>
> 

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca]

Take ORS as an example in bicycle mode. If you happen to pick any sidewalk when 
clicking your route points it will route to the sidewalks. Since the sidewalk 
and street ways are so close this happen all the time unless you totally 
zoom-in to add any routing point . If the sidewalk had bicycle=no I am not sure 
if it would just snap to the closest allowed street but I would think so. Of 
course if you don’t add any intermediate points and you only route from A to B 
this won’t happen, but in real life cyclist do more complex routes than this 
when planning a trip or ride.

> On Apr 3, 2020, at 10:46, Nate Wessel  wrote:
> 
> Which routing engines are causing problems exactly? Routing a bicycle on a 
> sidewalk may be appropriate/reasonable in some cases and over short distances 
> where one could be instructed to dismount and walk. I'd be interested to see 
> some of the problematic routes that are being suggested to see if there isn't 
> a more elegant way of resolving this. 
> 
> I personally only use explicit access tags where there is clear signage 
> indicating some type of special access restriction. Otherwise the default 
> should be assumed. Routing engines should be able to accommodate region 
> differences in default values without needing to manually tag millions of 
> ways. Whether they can or do allow that is a problem for the people 
> developing the routing engines. 
> 
> Nate Wessel, PhD
> Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
> NateWessel.com 
> On 2020-04-03 10:39 a.m., John Whelan wrote:
>> I'd recommend bicycle=no and I live in Ottawa.  In Ottawa footpaths that 
>> connect in general are bicycle=yes as they come under municipal regulation 
>> but a sidewalk on a highway comes under provincial legislation which bans 
>> bicycles on sidewalks.  Sparks street is fun I think you are not permitted 
>> to ride your bicycle but I'm unsure if this is provincial, municipal or it 
>> might even be NCC which is federal of course.
>> 
>> In the UK they are banned by law but in certain cities the Chief Constable 
>> has stated the law will not be enforced within the police force boundaries 
>> as a letter of interpretation.  It might be nice for Ottawa to do the same 
>> sometime but there again we have City of Ottawa police, OPP, RCMP and of 
>> course the PPS.
>> 
>> Cheerio John
>> 
>> James wrote on 2020-04-03 10:25 AM:
>>> I don't think it's more tagging for the renderer as much as it's being more 
>>> specific(more data) to specify a abstract view: without knowledge of 
>>> Canadian/Provincial/Municipal laws about biking on sidewalks. 
>>> 
>>> I think Montreal and Gatineau are more enforced as Ottawa it is illegal to 
>>> bike on the sidewalk, but people are still doing it, but that's beside the 
>>> point.
>>> 
>>> On Fri., Apr. 3, 2020, 10:18 a.m. Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais via Talk-ca, 
>>> mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>> 
>>> I would like to start a discussion on how we should deal with sidewalks 
>>> tagged separately, like it is is done in downtown Ottawa and like we are 
>>> starting to do in the Montreal region.
>>> 
>>> The issue is that by default highway=footway with or without 
>>> footway=sidewalk should have an implicit bicycle=no by default according to 
>>> this page: 
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> However, some osm users told me I should tag them with bicycle=no 
>>> everywhere because routing engines use sidewalks for bicycle routing which 
>>> is illegal in most part of Canada.
>>> 
>>> What are your thoughts on this ? Should we adapt to routing engines or 
>>> should routing engines fix the issue themselves?
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Sent from Postbox 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 
>> 
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[James]

I think OSRM for bicycles prefer roads to sidewalks as a base value. And
prefer cycleways even more than roads

On Fri., Apr. 3, 2020, 11:01 a.m. Nate Wessel,  wrote:

> I've been using OSRM a lot for bicycle routing in Toronto and haven't seen
> many route suggestions that I would consider terribly unreasonable.
> Sidewalks only ever appear at the start/end of a route because they may be
> slightly closer to the requested destination.
>
> Nate Wessel, PhD
> Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
> NateWessel.com 
> On 2020-04-03 10:51 a.m., Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais wrote:
>
> For our researches, we use the OSRM routing engine, in which the default
> profile for bicycle sets the footway to walking speed (5 km/h) instead of
> bicycle speed (around 15-20 km/h), which is the same as dismounting for
> routing purpose.
>
> On Apr 3, 2020, at 10:46, Nate Wessel  wrote:
>
> Which routing engines are causing problems exactly? Routing a bicycle on a
> sidewalk may be appropriate/reasonable in some cases and over short
> distances where one could be instructed to dismount and walk. I'd be
> interested to see some of the problematic routes that are being suggested
> to see if there isn't a more elegant way of resolving this.
>
> I personally only use explicit access tags where there is clear signage
> indicating some type of special access restriction. Otherwise the default
> should be assumed. Routing engines *should* be able to accommodate region
> differences in default values without needing to manually tag millions of
> ways. Whether they can or do allow that is a problem for the people
> developing the routing engines.
>
> Nate Wessel, PhD
> Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
> NateWessel.com 
> On 2020-04-03 10:39 a.m., John Whelan wrote:
>
> I'd recommend bicycle=no and I live in Ottawa.  In Ottawa footpaths that
> connect in general are bicycle=yes as they come under municipal regulation
> but a sidewalk on a highway comes under provincial legislation which bans
> bicycles on sidewalks.  Sparks street is fun I think you are not permitted
> to ride your bicycle but I'm unsure if this is provincial, municipal or it
> might even be NCC which is federal of course.
>
> In the UK they are banned by law but in certain cities the Chief Constable
> has stated the law will not be enforced within the police force boundaries
> as a letter of interpretation.  It might be nice for Ottawa to do the same
> sometime but there again we have City of Ottawa police, OPP, RCMP and of
> course the PPS.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> James wrote on 2020-04-03 10:25 AM:
>
> I don't think it's more tagging for the renderer as much as it's being
> more specific(more data) to specify a abstract view: without knowledge of
> Canadian/Provincial/Municipal laws about biking on sidewalks.
>
> I think Montreal and Gatineau are more enforced as Ottawa it is illegal to
> bike on the sidewalk, but people are still doing it, but that's beside the
> point.
>
> On Fri., Apr. 3, 2020, 10:18 a.m. Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais via Talk-ca, <
> talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I would like to start a discussion on how we should deal with sidewalks
>> tagged separately, like it is is done in downtown Ottawa and like we are
>> starting to do in the Montreal region.
>>
>> The issue is that by default highway=footway with or without
>> footway=sidewalk should have an implicit bicycle=no by default according to
>> this page:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions
>>
>> However, some osm users told me I should tag them with bicycle=no
>> everywhere because routing engines use sidewalks for bicycle routing which
>> is illegal in most part of Canada.
>>
>> What are your thoughts on this ? Should we adapt to routing engines or
>> should routing engines fix the issue themselves?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing 
> listTalk-ca@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
> --
> Sent from Postbox 
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing 
> listTalk-ca@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Nate Wessel]

I've been using OSRM a lot for bicycle routing in Toronto and haven't 
seen many route suggestions that I would consider terribly unreasonable. 
Sidewalks only ever appear at the start/end of a route because they may 
be slightly closer to the requested destination.


Nate Wessel, PhD
Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
NateWessel.com 

On 2020-04-03 10:51 a.m., Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais wrote:
For our researches, we use the OSRM routing engine, in which the 
default profile for bicycle sets the footway to walking speed (5 km/h) 
instead of bicycle speed (around 15-20 km/h), which is the same as 
dismounting for routing purpose.


On Apr 3, 2020, at 10:46, Nate Wessel > wrote:


Which routing engines are causing problems exactly? Routing a bicycle 
on a sidewalk may be appropriate/reasonable in some cases and over 
short distances where one could be instructed to dismount and walk. 
I'd be interested to see some of the problematic routes that are 
being suggested to see if there isn't a more elegant way of resolving 
this.


I personally only use explicit access tags where there is clear 
signage indicating some type of special access restriction. Otherwise 
the default should be assumed. Routing engines /should/ be able to 
accommodate region differences in default values without needing to 
manually tag millions of ways. Whether they can or do allow that is a 
problem for the people developing the routing engines.


Nate Wessel, PhD
Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
NateWessel.com 

On 2020-04-03 10:39 a.m., John Whelan wrote:
I'd recommend bicycle=no and I live in Ottawa.  In Ottawa footpaths 
that connect in general are bicycle=yes as they come under municipal 
regulation but a sidewalk on a highway comes under provincial 
legislation which bans bicycles on sidewalks.  Sparks street is fun 
I think you are not permitted to ride your bicycle but I'm unsure if 
this is provincial, municipal or it might even be NCC which is 
federal of course.


In the UK they are banned by law but in certain cities the Chief 
Constable has stated the law will not be enforced within the police 
force boundaries as a letter of interpretation.  It might be nice 
for Ottawa to do the same sometime but there again we have City of 
Ottawa police, OPP, RCMP and of course the PPS.


Cheerio John

James wrote on 2020-04-03 10:25 AM:
I don't think it's more tagging for the renderer as much as it's 
being more specific(more data) to specify a abstract view: without 
knowledge of Canadian/Provincial/Municipal laws about biking on 
sidewalks.


I think Montreal and Gatineau are more enforced as Ottawa it is 
illegal to bike on the sidewalk, but people are still doing it, but 
that's beside the point.


On Fri., Apr. 3, 2020, 10:18 a.m. Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais via 
Talk-ca, > wrote:


Hi!

I would like to start a discussion on how we should deal with
sidewalks tagged separately, like it is is done in downtown
Ottawa and like we are starting to do in the Montreal region.

The issue is that by default highway=footway with or without
footway=sidewalk should have an implicit bicycle=no by default
according to this page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions

However, some osm users told me I should tag them with
bicycle=no everywhere because routing engines use sidewalks for
bicycle routing which is illegal in most part of Canada.

What are your thoughts on this ? Should we adapt to routing
engines or should routing engines fix the issue themselves?

Thanks!


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca



___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


--
Sent from Postbox 

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais]

For our researches, we use the OSRM routing engine, in which the default 
profile for bicycle sets the footway to walking speed (5 km/h) instead of 
bicycle speed (around 15-20 km/h), which is the same as dismounting for routing 
purpose.

> On Apr 3, 2020, at 10:46, Nate Wessel  wrote:
> 
> Which routing engines are causing problems exactly? Routing a bicycle on a 
> sidewalk may be appropriate/reasonable in some cases and over short distances 
> where one could be instructed to dismount and walk. I'd be interested to see 
> some of the problematic routes that are being suggested to see if there isn't 
> a more elegant way of resolving this. 
> 
> I personally only use explicit access tags where there is clear signage 
> indicating some type of special access restriction. Otherwise the default 
> should be assumed. Routing engines should be able to accommodate region 
> differences in default values without needing to manually tag millions of 
> ways. Whether they can or do allow that is a problem for the people 
> developing the routing engines. 
> 
> Nate Wessel, PhD
> Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
> NateWessel.com 
> On 2020-04-03 10:39 a.m., John Whelan wrote:
>> I'd recommend bicycle=no and I live in Ottawa.  In Ottawa footpaths that 
>> connect in general are bicycle=yes as they come under municipal regulation 
>> but a sidewalk on a highway comes under provincial legislation which bans 
>> bicycles on sidewalks.  Sparks street is fun I think you are not permitted 
>> to ride your bicycle but I'm unsure if this is provincial, municipal or it 
>> might even be NCC which is federal of course.
>> 
>> In the UK they are banned by law but in certain cities the Chief Constable 
>> has stated the law will not be enforced within the police force boundaries 
>> as a letter of interpretation.  It might be nice for Ottawa to do the same 
>> sometime but there again we have City of Ottawa police, OPP, RCMP and of 
>> course the PPS.
>> 
>> Cheerio John
>> 
>> James wrote on 2020-04-03 10:25 AM:
>>> I don't think it's more tagging for the renderer as much as it's being more 
>>> specific(more data) to specify a abstract view: without knowledge of 
>>> Canadian/Provincial/Municipal laws about biking on sidewalks. 
>>> 
>>> I think Montreal and Gatineau are more enforced as Ottawa it is illegal to 
>>> bike on the sidewalk, but people are still doing it, but that's beside the 
>>> point.
>>> 
>>> On Fri., Apr. 3, 2020, 10:18 a.m. Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais via Talk-ca, 
>>> mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>> 
>>> I would like to start a discussion on how we should deal with sidewalks 
>>> tagged separately, like it is is done in downtown Ottawa and like we are 
>>> starting to do in the Montreal region.
>>> 
>>> The issue is that by default highway=footway with or without 
>>> footway=sidewalk should have an implicit bicycle=no by default according to 
>>> this page: 
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> However, some osm users told me I should tag them with bicycle=no 
>>> everywhere because routing engines use sidewalks for bicycle routing which 
>>> is illegal in most part of Canada.
>>> 
>>> What are your thoughts on this ? Should we adapt to routing engines or 
>>> should routing engines fix the issue themselves?
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Sent from Postbox 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 
>> 
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca]

Maybe the issue is that in ID and I assume that is the Canadian default value, 
the bicycle access tag is left undefined. Why isn’t that tag defaulted to no as 
it is for cars ? Then an explicit yes tag can be added only to the odd place 
where cycling on a sidewalk is allowed. We are talking routing engines here, 
not the kid that plays on the street.

> On Apr 3, 2020, at 10:46, Nate Wessel  wrote:
> 
> Which routing engines are causing problems exactly? Routing a bicycle on a 
> sidewalk may be appropriate/reasonable in some cases and over short distances 
> where one could be instructed to dismount and walk. I'd be interested to see 
> some of the problematic routes that are being suggested to see if there isn't 
> a more elegant way of resolving this. 
> 
> I personally only use explicit access tags where there is clear signage 
> indicating some type of special access restriction. Otherwise the default 
> should be assumed. Routing engines should be able to accommodate region 
> differences in default values without needing to manually tag millions of 
> ways. Whether they can or do allow that is a problem for the people 
> developing the routing engines. 
> 
> Nate Wessel, PhD
> Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
> NateWessel.com 
> On 2020-04-03 10:39 a.m., John Whelan wrote:
>> I'd recommend bicycle=no and I live in Ottawa.  In Ottawa footpaths that 
>> connect in general are bicycle=yes as they come under municipal regulation 
>> but a sidewalk on a highway comes under provincial legislation which bans 
>> bicycles on sidewalks.  Sparks street is fun I think you are not permitted 
>> to ride your bicycle but I'm unsure if this is provincial, municipal or it 
>> might even be NCC which is federal of course.
>> 
>> In the UK they are banned by law but in certain cities the Chief Constable 
>> has stated the law will not be enforced within the police force boundaries 
>> as a letter of interpretation.  It might be nice for Ottawa to do the same 
>> sometime but there again we have City of Ottawa police, OPP, RCMP and of 
>> course the PPS.
>> 
>> Cheerio John
>> 
>> James wrote on 2020-04-03 10:25 AM:
>>> I don't think it's more tagging for the renderer as much as it's being more 
>>> specific(more data) to specify a abstract view: without knowledge of 
>>> Canadian/Provincial/Municipal laws about biking on sidewalks. 
>>> 
>>> I think Montreal and Gatineau are more enforced as Ottawa it is illegal to 
>>> bike on the sidewalk, but people are still doing it, but that's beside the 
>>> point.
>>> 
>>> On Fri., Apr. 3, 2020, 10:18 a.m. Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais via Talk-ca, 
>>> mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>> 
>>> I would like to start a discussion on how we should deal with sidewalks 
>>> tagged separately, like it is is done in downtown Ottawa and like we are 
>>> starting to do in the Montreal region.
>>> 
>>> The issue is that by default highway=footway with or without 
>>> footway=sidewalk should have an implicit bicycle=no by default according to 
>>> this page: 
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> However, some osm users told me I should tag them with bicycle=no 
>>> everywhere because routing engines use sidewalks for bicycle routing which 
>>> is illegal in most part of Canada.
>>> 
>>> What are your thoughts on this ? Should we adapt to routing engines or 
>>> should routing engines fix the issue themselves?
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Sent from Postbox 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 
>> 
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Nate Wessel]

Which routing engines are causing problems exactly? Routing a bicycle on 
a sidewalk may be appropriate/reasonable in some cases and over short 
distances where one could be instructed to dismount and walk. I'd be 
interested to see some of the problematic routes that are being 
suggested to see if there isn't a more elegant way of resolving this.


I personally only use explicit access tags where there is clear signage 
indicating some type of special access restriction. Otherwise the 
default should be assumed. Routing engines /should/ be able to 
accommodate region differences in default values without needing to 
manually tag millions of ways. Whether they can or do allow that is a 
problem for the people developing the routing engines.


Nate Wessel, PhD
Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd
NateWessel.com 

On 2020-04-03 10:39 a.m., John Whelan wrote:
I'd recommend bicycle=no and I live in Ottawa.  In Ottawa footpaths 
that connect in general are bicycle=yes as they come under municipal 
regulation but a sidewalk on a highway comes under provincial 
legislation which bans bicycles on sidewalks.  Sparks street is fun I 
think you are not permitted to ride your bicycle but I'm unsure if 
this is provincial, municipal or it might even be NCC which is federal 
of course.


In the UK they are banned by law but in certain cities the Chief 
Constable has stated the law will not be enforced within the police 
force boundaries as a letter of interpretation.  It might be nice for 
Ottawa to do the same sometime but there again we have City of Ottawa 
police, OPP, RCMP and of course the PPS.


Cheerio John

James wrote on 2020-04-03 10:25 AM:
I don't think it's more tagging for the renderer as much as it's 
being more specific(more data) to specify a abstract view: without 
knowledge of Canadian/Provincial/Municipal laws about biking on 
sidewalks.


I think Montreal and Gatineau are more enforced as Ottawa it is 
illegal to bike on the sidewalk, but people are still doing it, but 
that's beside the point.


On Fri., Apr. 3, 2020, 10:18 a.m. Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais via Talk-ca, 
mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:


Hi!

I would like to start a discussion on how we should deal with
sidewalks tagged separately, like it is is done in downtown
Ottawa and like we are starting to do in the Montreal region.

The issue is that by default highway=footway with or without
footway=sidewalk should have an implicit bicycle=no by default
according to this page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions

However, some osm users told me I should tag them with bicycle=no
everywhere because routing engines use sidewalks for bicycle
routing which is illegal in most part of Canada.

What are your thoughts on this ? Should we adapt to routing
engines or should routing engines fix the issue themselves?

Thanks!


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca



___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


--
Sent from Postbox 

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[John Whelan]

I'd recommend bicycle=no and I live in Ottawa.  In Ottawa footpaths that 
connect in general are bicycle=yes as they come under municipal 
regulation but a sidewalk on a highway comes under provincial 
legislation which bans bicycles on sidewalks.  Sparks street is fun I 
think you are not permitted to ride your bicycle but I'm unsure if this 
is provincial, municipal or it might even be NCC which is federal of course.


In the UK they are banned by law but in certain cities the Chief 
Constable has stated the law will not be enforced within the police 
force boundaries as a letter of interpretation.  It might be nice for 
Ottawa to do the same sometime but there again we have City of Ottawa 
police, OPP, RCMP and of course the PPS.


Cheerio John

James wrote on 2020-04-03 10:25 AM:
I don't think it's more tagging for the renderer as much as it's being 
more specific(more data) to specify a abstract view: without knowledge 
of Canadian/Provincial/Municipal laws about biking on sidewalks.


I think Montreal and Gatineau are more enforced as Ottawa it is 
illegal to bike on the sidewalk, but people are still doing it, but 
that's beside the point.


On Fri., Apr. 3, 2020, 10:18 a.m. Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais via Talk-ca, 
mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:


Hi!

I would like to start a discussion on how we should deal with
sidewalks tagged separately, like it is is done in downtown Ottawa
and like we are starting to do in the Montreal region.

The issue is that by default highway=footway with or without
footway=sidewalk should have an implicit bicycle=no by default
according to this page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions

However, some osm users told me I should tag them with bicycle=no
everywhere because routing engines use sidewalks for bicycle
routing which is illegal in most part of Canada.

What are your thoughts on this ? Should we adapt to routing
engines or should routing engines fix the issue themselves?

Thanks!


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca



___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


--
Sent from Postbox 
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[James]

I don't think it's more tagging for the renderer as much as it's being more
specific(more data) to specify a abstract view: without knowledge of
Canadian/Provincial/Municipal laws about biking on sidewalks.

I think Montreal and Gatineau are more enforced as Ottawa it is illegal to
bike on the sidewalk, but people are still doing it, but that's beside the
point.

On Fri., Apr. 3, 2020, 10:18 a.m. Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais via Talk-ca, <
talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I would like to start a discussion on how we should deal with sidewalks
> tagged separately, like it is is done in downtown Ottawa and like we are
> starting to do in the Montreal region.
>
> The issue is that by default highway=footway with or without
> footway=sidewalk should have an implicit bicycle=no by default according to
> this page:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions
>
> However, some osm users told me I should tag them with bicycle=no
> everywhere because routing engines use sidewalks for bicycle routing which
> is illegal in most part of Canada.
>
> What are your thoughts on this ? Should we adapt to routing engines or
> should routing engines fix the issue themselves?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais via Talk-ca]

Hi!

I would like to start a discussion on how we should deal with sidewalks tagged 
separately, like it is is done in downtown Ottawa and like we are starting to 
do in the Montreal region.

The issue is that by default highway=footway with or without footway=sidewalk 
should have an implicit bicycle=no by default according to this page: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions 


However, some osm users told me I should tag them with bicycle=no everywhere 
because routing engines use sidewalks for bicycle routing which is illegal in 
most part of Canada.

What are your thoughts on this ? Should we adapt to routing engines or should 
routing engines fix the issue themselves?

Thanks!


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca