Hi all,
I've been spending some time today working on restarting the Toronto
building import effort which seems to have stalled a while back (I got
distracted, sorry!).
What I'm proposing to do is essentially just to finish off the building
import that was started over a year ago in
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>
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
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
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
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
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
>
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,
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
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
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,
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,
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,
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,
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
>
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
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
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
35 matches
Mail list logo
