On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 11:41 +0000, SK53 wrote: > Inadvisable is probably too dependent on the individual and their > particular situation. Absolutely, doing this could make many PROW inaccessible.
Phil (trigpoint) > As ever it is better to try adding something more objective to the > data which allows these routing situations to be better handled. The > current tags which allow this are sidewalk & verge. I think a > sensible solution for your generic case would be to disallow > pedestrian routing along A-roads which have sidewalk=none (perhaps > when maxspeed > 30 mph). Verges will not be practicable for many > pedestrians (Mums with pushchairs, toddlers, older people etc) so I > think can be ignored. > > This would still allow routing where no-one has surveyed or tagged > sidewalk provision, and is therefore less likely to break places > where there are pavements or paths. It also allows those cases where > walking along the road is inadvisable to be mapped on a case-by-case > basis. > > Other refinements might include considering whether a road is urban > or rural (Richard Fairhurst does this on cycle.travel): OS Open Data > provides a decent data set of this & the one I generate from OSM is > very similar. > > On a broader community level: mapping presence of absence of > pavements or other paths alongside main roads in the countryside (and > when absent features of the verge) is probably something we should > aim to do alongside completing speed limits for trunk roads. Much can > be done from Mapillary images. > > Jerry > > > > > On 8 March 2017 at 11:27, Stuart Reynolds <stuart@travelinesoutheast. > org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > What’s the thinking about tagging foot=no along busy dual > > carriageways? Specifically I would like to remove a walk from a > > stretch of the A2 near Barham in Kent where there are bus stops, > > but no footways along the verge (and indeed very little in the way > > of > > verge at some points). It is technically legal to walk along the > > A2 from the junction to the south, but it is most certainly not > > advisable and you would be taking your life into your hands if you > > did so. > > > > > > > > BTW, access to the northbound bus stop is via a footpath through > > the woods. Technically the southbound one is accessed via a > > footpath across a break in the crash barriers - but we don’t have > > that on OSM, and I’m not about to add it in. > > > > > > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/26237116#map=18/51.21188/1.16626 > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > Stuart Reynolds > > for traveline south east & anglia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Talk-GB mailing list > > > > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > > > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
