On Thu, 17 Sep 2020, 01:37 Taskar Center, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > This is yet another example why "sticking" the sidewalks onto the highway > (as a tag) rather than mapping them as separate ways is appearing to be > less and less practical. Please see our sidewalk schema proposal > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sidewalk_schema> > from several years ago. > This is all well and good for roads without tree cover in areas where the imagery is good. At other times a tag on the road is the best option if you don't want to just make up geometry.
> > I think @Mark brings up really relevant width distinctions, and I believe > that once we agree that sidewalks require their own geometry, we should > have a similar discussion about the interpretation of width in the > sidewalks context. > > I look at this issue from the perspective of routing. Routers are > interested in functional width (which would be Mark's 'driven path' > option). Even with the consideration of transiency of both of the last two > of Mark's definitions, 'maintained' and 'driven path' width, this is a much > better approximation for additional considerations than routing- it can be > an indicator of traffic stress, it can provide information for the 'slow > streets' movement, it can also provide a means of reconciling improper > imports that labeled all roads as 'primary' when they should not. > > My last comment has to do with the separation of sidewalks from streets- > in that in many locales the responsibility of street maintenance falls on a > different entity than sidewalk maintenance (for example, in Seattle, the > sidewalk is the responsibility of the homeowner, rather than the > municipality who IS responsible for the street infrastructure). So it is > actually advantageous to have these mapped as separate entities so we can > keep track of infrastructure maintenance. > > Best regards, > > Anat > > > > Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 1:23 AM Supaplex <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I expect the "width" of a way to be the actual width of the object it >> represents. >> >> It depends on how we define "highway" in the OSM sense. You could also >> assume that sidewalks etc. are "sticking" on the highway merely for >> pragmatic reasons. Depending on the point of view, sidewalks and highways >> represent different entities. (There is no law definition here, I only find >> a German court decision that deals with street widths and thus means the >> distance between the curbs, with carriageway and parked vehicles, so as >> definition 2 above.) >> >> But I agree that it would be better to always specify which width is >> meant exactly when mapping widths on streets (especially to use >> "width:carriageway" for the rating of traffic suitability). Nevertheless, a >> default, which meaning of "width" is meant without a prefix/suffix, would >> still be helpful. Fun Fact: On the wiki highway page - in contrast to what >> is discussed here - it says since 2012 that "width" means the width of the >> carriageway (but it does not look like this paragraph has ever been >> discussed): >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways#Surface.2C_width_and_lighting >> >> Alex >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
