That is an interesting case! Looking at mapillary, it looks like part of it is paved. I'm not sure whether that makes it a footway or not, but it looks incredibly dangerous to cross there: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.91808029997222&lng=-1.1642329000000018&z=17.363583160262273&focus=photo&pKey=Bn5q8Eay8Sar3ELAEaHXFg&x=0.5127641245746908&y=0.55074602568446&zoom=0
This is a case where I feel my own subjectivity comes into play when it comes to mapping: do I map a potentially unsafe crossing (sometimes the only one available for miles) and hope that data consumers contextualize it properly (a multi-part unmarked crossing on a primary highway) or do I dictate crossing=no / add notes? I don't feel confident in either option, personally, and actually tend to just not map it and hope for the best. On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 2:31 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 20:58, Andy Townsend <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Adding ways where people might think there ought to be ways (but there >> aren't really) is certainly established. As an example, >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/691036735 is one that I did >> yesterday. Historically I suspect that there was a legal right of way >> across here (and there might still be, although there is nothing >> signed), and there is gap in the barrier that appears to have been >> created to allow crossing, but I wouldn't try it unless you fancy >> playing "human frogger". >> > > Nice one Andy! > > Just wondering if that would be better as a description, or both note & > description? > > Thanks > > Graeme > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
