On samedi 19 mars 2011 at 18:09, Ben Laenen wrote : > Renaud MICHEL wrote: > > He argues that the mapnik rendering of this show how irrationnal it is > > (which is a personnal preference on which I differ) and that those > > should be tagged on the main way. > > I personnally think that it is more topologically correct, having a > > parallel footway (where there exists ont) and foot=no on the main road, > > as on important roads you may not cross anywhere, but only where a > > crossing exists, so a separate way allow for correct routing for > > pedestrians. > > Can you show an example where this is the case, where you're not allowed > to cross a road, but are allowed to walk on sidewalks next to it? I may > have missed something, but I think the traffic code simply doesn't make > it possible to have such a situation. Except when there really is a > separate path next to the road, in which case the two just happen to be > parallel and in which case drawing the footpaths as separate ways is the > only logical option. And in which case you should really reconsider > whether "footway" is the right designation.
You mean that a pedestrian is allowed to cross aven a national road anywhere he wants, and even walk on it? I have always thought that (and acted acordingly), if a crossing (be it controlled or not) is close enough you may not cross the road but must take the crossing. (close enough beeing around 50-100m, but I don't remember exactly) > Also, only put a tag like foot=no on the road when there are signs > explicitly forbidding pedestrians on the road. Without such a sign, the > road allows pedestrians walking along it (on the sidewalk or footway if > there is one which is part of the road, or on the road itself > otherwise), and crossing it anywhere they like, even if it would not be > wise to do so. Because without the sign, pedestrians can still walk on > the road if the sidewalk and verges happen to be blocked. Well, my reasoning was that, as I had mapped separately the walking part, that the main road sould not be used for walking. > > As an > > example, on this way > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/57687924 > > you may simply not cross the road between the bridges. > > (I don't create parallel footways for every road, only those where I > > consider it unwise to cross anywhere) > > "unwise" is a very subjective word. Tag the reality, nothing more. Well, the sidewalks exists in reality, so I could map them all if I wanted to (which I don't, as you wrote previously it is useless for residential roads). > That's a non-issue. These routers are getting better everyday. Don't > start modifying data to help them do something now which they might do > themselves tomorrow. > > If you're really not allowed to cross a road, then the road is either a > motorway, motorroad or has a sign forbidding access to pedestrians. And > in these cases paths next to it are separate from the road and need > their own ways. > > We're of course still left with the issue of linking footways and > cycleways to a road so a router can tell whether a pedestrian has to > follow the path next to it (when these paths are part of the road) or > not (when the path is a separate road itself), but then we probably > enter the realm of the previous discussion on this list: street > relations... OK, I don't really understand your point about linking to a road, btu I will replace my highway=footways by footway=* on the main road where they are only sidewalks. But that will probably mean splitting ways once more where sidewalks start/end. thank you for your answer -- Renaud Michel _______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
