Hi Colm, Perhaps you're the same Colm that I was in touch with on a similar subject a few days ago? If so, we had discussed raising this on the mailing list so either way this would be as good a time to add some further thoughts to the subject if that's ok. Apologies for the long read...
The aspects you drew attention here to are really interesting as they highlight how differently all contributors to OSM can see the value, use and appeal of the map. I myself am more biased towards visual reading of maps (yes, that old fashioned way) and sometimes see people question the value of mapping something where I see no question at all. All valid questions though, of course. In my attempts at recommending OSM to various friends and work colleagues for actual map usage most try and use it for visual reading of a map (they generally find it doesn't work as well as Google for directions), whereas any friends who would be more technically inclined often find the routing, tools and contributing more appealing. I've come across a potential clash of solutions for drawing and tagging for routing applications vs drawing and tagging for visual applications on OSM. As mentioned above, people contributing to the map can be attracted to it for varying reasons and I caught a pattern occuring in lots of areas I was contributing to. Seeing that all applications and uses should be catered for as best as possible, myself and VictorIE (the same Colm?) got talking about our difference of opinions on the matter. The issue I raised revolves around the use of short, sporadic footways that appear in locations where there isn't a designated footway. In terms of visual mapping I am not a fan. I've seen them appear as multiple desire lines across fields or as someone's preference for where they may cross a traffic island on a busy road where there is no markings or crossing in real life. In this instance, an almost infinite combination of footways could be drawn across the traffic islands/fields and, although there are certainly exceptions where the footway aids in suggesting where to walk, it seems to benefit routing applications to the detrement of visual applications. Footways drawn in urban areas can be potentially confusing at communicating visually. I've seen understandable additions where they've been added in locations where the footway area is wide to give some visual sense to the void of space on the map between roads (e.g. some may read a large void between roads as potentially containing buildings/fields). In my opinion, the presence of a short footway on the map can suggest that there's something preferential to it over all the adjoining ones I assume are there in real life, or that there's a lack of others. Where the footway is wide, the limitation of an OSM way being uniformly thin can be hard to decipher when trying to confident you're in the right location from a visual map reading. Pedestrian way areas solve most of the visual problem but don't help routing where it's needed with most routing applications, so a combination can be useful. Conversely, I've seen urban projects on OSM where a large collection of footways have been added to aid pedestrians. The sheer abundance removed some of the doubt I just mentioned though this is a controversial approach in that it can look incredibly messy if care is not given to the amount of ways running parallel. It also a rather luxurious addition that can take low priority given that most urban highways are assumed to have some form of footway neighbouring them. VictorIE correctly pointed out that OSM is a connection of joined up roads. A dominant use of OSM is for driving and the streets are the primary feature (the clue's in the name). It's essential that this use is adhered to for applications that provide directions and similar services. His own reason for the sporadic footways I'd seen in areas I was working on were to ensure roads were joined correctly for these services. The technicalities of this are not my forté but I would have thought there were other means to link roads for routing purposes. I also assumed that a routing application would not realise that a highway joining another highway was traversable only because a footway linked the two. I originally discussed the issue with VictorIE after a footway added to a traffic island struck me as a particularly dangerous spot to cross at. There were no markings or designated footway in real life so I removed it out of worry. After he reinstated it I got in touch to figure this where he explained his reasons relating to routing. There was also a suggestion that doing so helped unclutter diagnostic tools. Again, in my opinion, I would give preference to solving problems with day to day usage of the map rather than solving problems on diagnostic tools. The latter should (and mostly does) aid in solving the first but should not be the target themselves if not confident it aids all day to day usage. Examples: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=53.38877&mlon=-6.07409#map=19/53.38877/-6.07409 There are now two footways extending northwards off the looping driveway in front of the train station, to connect it to the footway running parellel against the station entrance. For routing, I see few issues as there's no wall blocking where they're drawn. Visually, they suggest to me that there is a designated way to walk here where there isn't. The left-most one is typically blocked by cars as it's a parking space. The right-most one is a dangerous spot to cross as it's a busy, wide road. There's a designated crossing-space further west from it that wasn't marked on the map. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=53.37103&mlon=-6.20664#map=19/53.37103/-6.20664 As mentioned earlier. There is no designated pedestrian area where they footway's drawn. The traffic island is occasionally used by pedestrians but the way drawn is (in my opinion, I live nearby) a lethal part to cross as cars swing around the blind corner quite fast sometimes. Most people cross further up Collins Avenue (where there's still no designated crossing) when they've experienced a few near misses and often avoid the traffic island. I cannot see the sense in OSM working in such a way that this solves a routing issue at the detriment of visually reading the map (in any renderer). By the way, the fact that these little footways keep popping up just after I add new roads clearly indicates I'm doing something that is annoying diagnostic tools. I get no validation errors and the nodes are joined correctly. What should I be doing in terms of routing validation to stop annoying those who take the time to check for these errors on diagnostic tools? Thanks, Conor _______________________________________________ Talk-ie mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
