<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 04/08/2016 02:35, Mike Thompson
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CALJoUku6_e7FwJxi2kSi0WP03EyDBA4xECgwrZ4XnfJMkgZufQ@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div class="gmail_extra">
          <div class="gmail_quote"><br>
            <div>I tested out the proposed mapping/tagging scheme in my
              local area (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/40.49192/-105.05655">http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/40.49192/-105.05655</a>
              - not claiming I did it perfectly). I didn't think it was
              especially difficult. Drawing the additional ways took a
              little more time, but offered the advantage that you
              received a good visual as to whether all the sidewalks had
              been correctly mapped. </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Thanks for sharing that.  One question though - would it make sense
    to use "sidewalk=separate" (see
    <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/sidewalk#values">http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/sidewalk#values</a> ) on
    <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33496127">http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33496127</a> ?  That way it's clear to
    all data consumers that <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33496127">http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33496127</a>
    exists as a sidewalk for it.<br>
    <br>
    I'm guessing that there may be some connections (and possibly kerbs)
    missing, so that a foot router that navigated people over kerbs
    wouldn't use:<br>
    <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=40.49172%2C-105.05390%3B40.49167%2C-105.05421#map=18/40.49184/-105.05462">http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=40.49172%2C-105.05390%3B40.49167%2C-105.05421#map=18/40.49184/-105.05462</a><br>
    <br>
    but take a more direct route across the intersection and along a
    bit?  <br>
    <br>
    Cheers,<br>
    <br>
    Andy<br>
  </body>
</html>