> no, it isn't a pedestrian way, it is a street with sidewalk, it is not the same for routing.
There is certainly a dedicated pedestrian (and maybe cycling) way there: the sidewalk. If the sidewalk:right* keys are meant to only describe features of the street, then they are complementary to, rather than an alternative to, highway=footway, footway=sidewalk. > well... every way is a spatial inaccuracy because we use a way in stead of an area.. (...) For sure! There's always a sacrifice of spatial accuracy in mapping abstractions. But there's also a point where they get stretched too far - and in these cases, we're trying to shoehorn separated pedestrian ways and features encountered along them into street centerlines, with all the downsides and awkwardness I mentioned. > Or not, the street and the sidewalk do not change often here (> 10 years), the sidewalk is often the same type/surface/kerb ... for the whole street. Sure, but more data gets added as people map more features. And I underestimated the number of segments: a block with 10 driveways would actually need to be split into 10 lowered/flush curb sections and 11 raised sections, for a minimum of 21 segments for a single block. This is ignoring curb ramps (each adds 2 more), and other features meant to split road ways, like turn lanes, lane numbers, parking lanes, etc. And then someone comes along and wants to say, 'the surface of the sidewalk from here to here is asphalt' and sees a bajillion segments. This is with the additional loss of specificity and visibility of the features, and the only gain is that a pedestrian network is shoehorned into a street network. > Before advising people to describe as separate path when this is not the > casethe routing must first understand that our 2 way are a sidewalk connected to a street.If not, you break the routing and the only advantage seems to move sidewalk 3m away. Not sure if I understand what you mean, I'm not sure how this breaks routing. > Read me again, I did not say you can walk on the road if a sidewalk exist. I stated the rule used to know when a road must be single or splited. (...) I think there might be a misunderstanding, because I didn't say otherwise... > By keeping this rule for sidewalks, we avoid a lot of routing problem. But I'm pointing out that by that same rule, sidewalks should usually be separated. Your rule of thumb was this: "Guidelines for roads is very easy: split a road in 2 when you can NOT switch from one to the other (for example a road with a island)." The trouble is that unlike roads, where vehicular access falls into very few category restrictions, pedestrians have a huge diversity of restrictions. So for many (10-20% of the population), you "can NOT switch" from the sidewalk to the street due to things like curbs or bollards or safety concerns. And finally, for routing to actually handle street crossings as nodes and things like driveways, they need to essentially recreate the topology of separated sidewalks anyways (and none do this). These features are actually mostly ignored for pedestrian routers and used instead for routing motorized vehicles. But we're getting a bit off-topic. In terms of the original question, I think using highway=forward, footway=crossway is the least-bad option for making sure separate sidewalk ways are well-connected to the street grid, including when sidewalks terminate. Best, Nick On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 1:53 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 15. Jul 2017, at 08:13, Marc Gemis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think adding sidewalks might benefit pedestrian routing > > > adding driveways benefits pedestrian routing as well, because you can > consider all those little crossings as potentially dangerous, and route > people (e.g. kids) through places with fewer driveway crossings. Plus you > see for the gates whether cars can pass. > > Admittedly, it really depends on the situation whether I'd map all of them > or refrain for the moment because it seems too tedious and too little to > gain. > > Cheers, > Martin > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
