To Marc: > Why ? What is the benefit of adding driveways of 3-5 meters long ? I experimented with it in my neighborhood and the only thing it does is confuse navigation programs. My neighbour's driveway is longer than mine (it's a company) and now OsmAnd insists on taking his, because it comes closer to my house.
In my case, it's for pedestrians: it is often a de facto ramp from the sidewalk to the street (and vice versa), which is a practical route for many wheelchair users. It can also imply an uneven surface as you go from sidewalk to driveway to sidewalk, which can be a barrier to some. It doesn't really add much in terms of routing cars, like you note. On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 12:18 AM Nick Bolten <[email protected]> wrote: > To John: > > Those are all very good points. This one is particularly interesting: > > >An example of this issue is where a road with no sidewalks meets another > road with sidewalks, but does not cross it (and is not in an urban environ, > so there is no real paint to show a crossing=zebra) . Do you add a > crossing=unmarked that goes from the sidewalk to the node of the road’s T > junction? People on the sidewalk far side of the T junction will expect to > be able to cross the street there and continue on the road. > > I don't think we really have adequate tags to describe that situation, so > everyone makes due by either doing what you suggest (a half-crossing) or > connecting footways/sidewalks directly to roads. Neither makes perfect > semantic sense: it's not really a road crossing and it's also not really a > sidewalk, it's just a change of path that a pedestrian would realistically > need to make. It should probably use an entirely new tag for a pedestrian > transition of some sort (not unlike a *_link for roads), but that would of > course need to be hashed out in a separate proposal. In the meantime, I > also tend to use highway=footway, footway=crossing, crossing=unmarked to > connect an ending sidewalk to the road. > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:46 PM Andre Engels <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> My strategy in this kind of case is to add those driveways and virtual >> crossings that are useful for routing purposes. So if there is a >> junction, if there is a driveway opposite it, I will add that driveway >> (or maybe just the part of the driveway upto the sidewalk), if there >> is none, but people can cross there (in the case you describe: If >> there is an interruption in the hedge), I add a footway from the >> sidewalk to the junction, if neither is the case, I add the driveway >> or crossing point that is closest to the junction (on both sides if >> necessary). >> >> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Marc Gemis <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Another typical case >> > >> > - no explicitly marked crossings >> > - sidewalk parallel to road >> > - kerb separating sidewalk from road >> > - hedge, interrupted for each driveway and at the junctions, placed on >> > sidewalk, parallel with road. >> > >> > --> need to add all driveways ? >> > --> need to draw virtual crossings at junctions ? >> > >> > m >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Mike N <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 7/14/2017 8:14 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> but merge sidewalk with the road where the is no space/barier between >> >>>> them. >> >> >> >> >> >>> and that's were the discussion starts. When I asked when one has to >> >>> draw a separate sidewalk a few weeks ago on this mailing list someone >> >>> answered: as soon as there is a kerb. >> >> >> >> >> >> Similarly, I have been combining sidewalks with roads where there is >> no >> >> separation. But when there is a small grass separation from the >> roadway, >> >> they are drawn separately. For those cases, it is usually allowed to >> cross >> >> the grassy separation and the road to get to the opposite sidewalk. >> >> >> >> Throwing out the R word here - what about a relation that defines >> which >> >> disconnected ways could be walked to or across from any point on a >> current >> >> way? That would also include the road since there would be no >> barrier. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Tagging mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Tagging mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> >> >> -- >> André Engels, [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
