"If I’m planning a walk for myself or leading a group in a rural area such as the Peak District I would always assume for an A or B road sidewalk=none as the default. Because of a lack of detail on most maps for sidewalks and verges most people out walking in rural areas are likely to plan routes avoiding such roads. "
Whereas I'm not generally put off by limited amounts of A or B road walking (though there are some I would not walk down). This subjectivity is a good reason why tagging foot=no would be wrong. "I must admit I don’t know what the legal status is when it comes to walking along a verge." Verges are part of the highway, so it is perfectly legal to walk down them. "If enough people walk along a verge could/should it become sidewalk=*, surface=grass/ground/mud/...?" I can't recall mapping any but there are some roads I am aware of where there are established, well-worn paths along a verge. I'd be inclined to map those as separate footways, maybe with the footway=sidewalk tag (possibly the only time I'd use that tag in the UK). Adam On 9 March 2017 at 06:05, Dudley Ibbett <[email protected]> wrote: > If I’m planning a walk for myself or leading a group in a rural area such > as the Peak District I would always assume for an A or B road sidewalk=none > as the default. Because of a lack of detail on most maps for sidewalks > and verges most people out walking in rural areas are likely to plan routes > avoiding such roads. I must admit I don’t know what the legal status is > when it comes to walking along a verge. If enough people walk along a > verge could/should it become sidewalk=*, surface=grass/ground/mud/...? If > there was a particular need to use a section of an A or B road I would > currently have to go out and survey it or take a look at any suitable > images online. > > > > As a consequence of the above and my involvement in OSM I do now try and > put in sidewalks as there is the potential to produce a much better map for > walkers in rural areas using OSM. Sidewalks are certainly a feature I > would like to add to the maps I put on my Garmin GPS. I’m not aware of > any online map that displays sidewalks. It would certainly be useful if > there was one. > > > > I suspect routing for walking may need to be different when it comes to > rural and urban areas. The latter tends to be about getting from A to B. > In rural areas routing is most likely to be about a limited distance > starting and finishing at A and taking in specific features. > > > > I would certainly encourage people to map sidewalks in rural areas as > there seem to be no rules as to where they are likely to be found and they > are a very useful map feature for walkers. > > Dudley > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Philip Barnes <[email protected]> > *Sent:* 08 March 2017 12:49 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Legally permitted vs inadvisable > > 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. > cycle.travel | Commuting, Bike Maps, Cycle Routes, Touring > <http://cycle.travel/> > cycle.travel > Smart Turns – new on cycle.travel's route-planner. New Saturday 23 April > · 6. Today cycle.travel’s route-planner gets the biggest single > improvement since it ... > > > 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing > [email protected]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
