I think he was trying to distinguish between footways (which generally have their own names) and sidewalks (which generally don't have their own names).
-------Original Email------- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways >From :mailto:emac...@gmail.com Date :Fri Mar 25 06:21:51 America/Chicago 2011 On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:37 AM, David Paleino <da...@debian.org> wrote: >> One can take exactly the opposite stance, which is that in order to >> help the blind, we should make it as easy as possible to map things >> that they care about. Therefore a sidewalk=yes tag would be the >> fastest way to get the maximum data into the map. > > That's not the "maximum data", you know? > > The "blind-argument" was the one that made me re-think the whole scheme. > >> This is especially important when talking about rendering and routing, >> which I think are the main use cases of this tag. > > Routing, not rendering. We don't care about rendering, do you? > And there are plugins drawing parallel ways, you know? > 1) add name=... to the sidewalk, but it's redundant, even if simpler; > 2) use a relation. > This is really a myth IMHO. > They're hard to work with in Potlatch, maybe, but I see it as a bug of the > editor. In JOSM, for example, they're correctly handled, and are rather easy > to > work with IMVHO. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_as_separate_way#Relation > > The proposed relation is associatedStreet -- or, my favourite, the proposed > "street" (which should IMHO replace associatedStreet, but that's another > story) > > If you want some examples: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/254299 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1198910 > > Do you want me to link these from the proposal page? > >> Generally, I think this proposal seems to be more of a reaction. > > I agree, but "sidewalk={yes|left|both|right|none}" is just not enough. It > could be used as a first-pass mapping, yes. But, as written in the proposal > page, I'd regard it as "highway=road" for streets. Yes, there's a sidewalk > somewhere, but that's it. I think it tells me "just enough". You're proposing a new relation type, a set of associated tags, etc. in support of the sidewalk data. I'd like to suggest you should sit down and work out some mapnik rules for this, and work out a way for PL2 users to enter the relation and associations you've created. At the very least, this could help the downstream tool folks understand your proposals, but I think it'd also help you refine your proposal by helping you step back and see how tools would need to interact with it. The only thing I out and out disagree with entirely is your suggestion to tag sidewalks with a name. I'm concerned this will confuse folks. And by folks, I mean mappers, routers, renderers and editors.. That's why I think this scheme needs more work, because, when you map sidewalks as separate ways, you have to use a relation, and how exactly that's to work isn't fully figured out. - Serge _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging