Personally, I like to treat most sidewalks that are close to and basically parallel the same as attached ones. IE. both of Martijn's examples tagged as part of the roadway way. I would save the separate footpath highways for when it isn't a typical sidewalk.
Wider exercise paths that are also part of a network. Portions may fall in the "normal sidewalk" but is part of a greater whole that does not. Large gaps between the road, more than 3 meters or even 5 meters Deviates from the road, in witch case make the path separate for that block/road segment. Example: http://binged.it/1hf8E3K 2 blocks of Upper Park Road along the park side has a normal sidewalk (I'd map part of the road way), but the rest on the park side I would map as independent footpath ways, even the winding parts that are along the road as they are part of the park sidewalk/exercise trail. But adding and maintaining all the individual sidewalks in the residential part separate form the roads seems counter productive. Dale Puch On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Elliott Plack <elliott.pl...@gmail.com>wrote: > In Baltimore, I've refrained from tracing too many sidewalks, except when > the sidewalk is part of one the the signed city paths. I have noticed that > routing that uses OSM (like Strava) tends to choke if all the ways are not > there, and also if there are overlapping segments without a node. > > I like the, *if it is separate* philosophy. > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Kai Krueger <kakrue...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Toby Murray-2 wrote >> > Wait, what is the consensus method for tagging sidewalks? I haven't >> done a >> > lot of them but I know I've added a few as footways myself. >> >> I have struggled with how best to map sidewalks in the US as well. In >> european cities my impression is that sidewalks are generally directly >> attached as part of the road, and they are typically just another >> (special) >> "lane". So there you typically don't map the sidewalks as separate. >> Footways >> in those settings generally are real footways and thus deserve the >> prominence the style sheet gives them. But in the US (at least in >> suburbia), >> the sidewalks are often much more detached from the road with wide grass >> strips between them. They also sometimes aren't entirely parallel to the >> road. So there it makes more sense to map them as separate OSM ways rather >> than to use a sidewalk key on the main road. >> >> However, the separate ways also can have disadvantages for pedestrian >> routing. As a pedestrian, I would typically just cross a (non busy) road >> where ever I need to. If the sidewalks and roads are mapped separately, >> the >> router can't just tell you to cross the road though, but needs to route >> you >> to the next mapped intersection. One also needs to add a number of >> connection ways between roads and sidewalks which in that form doesn't >> really exist in reality, making the maps look even more messy. >> >> Not sure there is an ideal solution for this and we will likely see both >> explicit footway mapping and mapping as part of the road. It would still >> be >> good to come to somewhat more of a consensus on the topic though. >> >> Kai >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Sidewalks-as-footpaths-tp5804729p5804760.html >> Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> > > > > -- > Elliott Plack > http://about.me/elliottp > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
