<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 17 Sep 2020, 01:37 Taskar Center, <<a href="mailto:uwtcat@uw.edu">uwtcat@uw.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"><span></span></div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Hi,</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">This is yet another example why "sticking" the sidewalks onto the highway (as a tag) rather than mapping them as separate ways is appearing to be less and less practical. Please see our <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sidewalk_schema" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">sidewalk schema proposal</a> from several years ago.<div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">This is all well and good for roads without tree cover in areas where the imagery is good. At other times a tag on the road is the best option if you don't want to just make up geometry.</div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>I think @Mark brings up really relevant width distinctions, and I believe that once we agree that sidewalks require their own geometry, we should have a similar discussion about the interpretation of width in the sidewalks context. </div><div><br></div><div>I look at this issue from the perspective of routing. Routers are interested in functional width (which would be Mark's 'driven path' option). Even with the consideration of transiency of both of the last two of Mark's definitions, 'maintained' and 'driven path' width, this is a much better approximation for additional considerations than routing- it can be an indicator of traffic stress, it can provide information for the 'slow streets' movement, it can also provide a means of reconciling improper imports that labeled all roads as 'primary' when they should not. </div><div><br></div><div>My last comment has to do with the separation of sidewalks from streets- in that in many locales the responsibility of street maintenance falls on a different entity than sidewalk maintenance (for example, in Seattle, the sidewalk is the responsibility of the homeowner, rather than the municipality who IS responsible for the street infrastructure). So it is actually advantageous to have these mapped as separate entities so we can keep track of infrastructure maintenance.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Anat</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br><br><div dir="ltr" id="m_-1867609166347960945AppleMailSignature">Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.</div>On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 1:23 AM Supaplex <<a href="mailto:supaplex@riseup.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">supaplex@riseup.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">I
expect the "width" of a way to be the actual width of the object
it represents.
</blockquote>
It depends on how we define "highway" in the OSM sense. You could
also assume that sidewalks etc. are "sticking" on the highway merely
for pragmatic reasons. Depending on the point of view, sidewalks and
highways represent different entities. (There is no law definition
here, I only find a German court decision that deals with street
widths and thus means the distance between the curbs, with
carriageway and parked vehicles, so as definition 2 above.)<br>
<br>
But I agree that it would be better to always specify which width is
meant exactly when mapping widths on streets (especially to use
"width:carriageway" for the rating of traffic suitability).
Nevertheless, a default, which meaning of "width" is meant without a
prefix/suffix, would still be helpful. Fun Fact: On the wiki highway
page - in contrast to what is discussed here - it says since 2012
that "width" means the width of the carriageway (but it does not
look like this paragraph has ever been discussed):
<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways#Surface.2C_width_and_lighting" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways#Surface.2C_width_and_lighting</a><br>
<br>
Alex<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>