2011/8/25 Josh Doe <[email protected]> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Simone Saviolo > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Considering the above, I can hardly see how a crossing (either for > > pedestrians or cyclists or horsemen) would deserve its own way > (especially a > > highway=*). The only "need" for it - and mind it, it seems quite a good > > point to have it IMHO - would be routing. For sure, if it seems fit to > draw > > the way, it should not be a highway=footway (using pedestrians as an > > example). > > A highway=footway is a route that pedestrians are intended to use or > use on a regular basis, it doesn't always have to correspond to > physical infrastructure. In other words if there's a well worn path > through a field or forest that should be considered a highway=footway > (or possibly highway=path, but that's irrelevant here). I don't see > how there's any difference between a route that a pedestrian follows > through a field and one that crosses a street, what we're doing is > describing the *network* of ways that pedestrians travel on. >
So far I've thought of highway=footway as a "path" (not in the OSM sense) that is dedicated to pedestrians, but it's not a road closed to motorized traffic. For example, a pedestrian passageway through a park, or a pedestrian bridge over a railway. But if it's like you said, then I guess that a crossing might fall under that name. > > I suggest using highway=crossing for that. Using it on nodes is only > > appropriate to mark at what point of the road vehicles may encounter > > pedestrians trying to cross. Secondly, highway=crossing ways would be > > clearly indicated as routable segments that are not actually part of, for > > example, a cycleway network. > > For footways crossing streets we have the footway=crossing tag. I > suppose we could get away with a highway=crossing tag instead, but > then of course it's critical to add foot/bicycle/etc=yes/no. And all > data consumers would have to change to work with this new highway > type, not that it's something I'm opposed to, but it's worth > considering if the distinction between highway=crossing + foot=yes and > highway=footway + footway=crossing is worth the hassle. > This is nice too. I have no particular preference for any of these methods, and I wait to see what other people think. > Regards, > -Josh Regards, Simone
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
