On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Josh Doe <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Josh Doe <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Of course you'd want to make >>>> sure you connect the other footways to the roads, so a router can send >>>> someone along this strip. >>> >>> Not of course. A better route would be to cross the street and use >>> that sidewalk. >> >> Sure, coming from the west along the sidewalk next to S Tampa Ave, it >> might be safer to turn right and go along the "link", then turn left >> on the other "link" and get back on the sidewalk continuing to the >> east along S Tampa Ave. However you'll still connect the sidewalks to >> the road, so a routing engine can send someone along a faster and more >> direct route along S Tampa Ave on the shoulder, or a safer route along >> the "links". > > I just checked other places, and it doesn't seem that we do that. Are > unmarked (i.e. non-crosswalk) crossing areas even supposed to be > mapped?
Yes, crossings that are unmarked should be mapped if they are in fact crossings, i.e. if they are used or intended to be used on a regular basis. Some hints might be that there are dropped kerbs (curb cuts) on other side of a street, or if a path comes in perpendicularly (say from a park or forest) and ends at the road; in both of these cases you should certainly have a connection between the road and the footway/path. One of the benefits of doing so is that it enables routing (whether or not it's a safe route to follow). > >>>> In the future someone might tag the section >>>> of road with something like "shoulder:width=4 ft", >>>> "shoulder:surface=asphalt", "shoulder:type=striped", etc., which >>>> routers could use to determine the safety level this section. >>> >>> Except that it's not a shoulder. >> >> It is a shoulder, but it's part of a traffic island. > > Would you also call this a shoulder? > http://maps.google.com/maps?q=hillsborough+and+memorial&hl=en&ll=27.99668,-82.581544&spn=0.001896,0.002025&sll=27.99685,-82.581777&sspn=0.001896,0.002025&vpsrc=6&gl=us&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=27.996679,-82.581437&panoid=wuOm8S7pnbuRpxx802nJlQ&cbp=12,222.03,,0,10.97 > > I don't know, but it's certainly not how people are supposed to cross > the intersection. That's one ugly intersection! There are dropped kerbs on the raised part of the island, so one should have a highway=footway on the island and in the road to connect to the sidewalks on either end. From kerb to kerb I'd add footway=crossing. But yes, the striped area is a shoulder (and might also be part of the traffic island depending upon the exact definition of traffic island). However again, since there are intersecting nodes with the road and links, a router *could* send someone along the road, though of course that would be foolish because it is somewhat longer and less safe. -Josh _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
