<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>This leads to another topic where there is just as much need for
action. You can find the is_sidepath-scheme here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:is_sidepath">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:is_sidepath</a></p>
<p>It looks like a stub (note also the talk page), because the idea
is very simple but still solves some big problems with separate
paths:<br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>Separate paths are thus tagged with "is_sidepath=yes" (or
simple "sidepath=yes", need to be discussed). "footway=sidewalk"
is already in use to solve this issue on sidewalks, but there is
nothing for e.g. separate bike paths.</li>
<li>The associated highway is still tagged with
"cycleway/sidewalk=separate" (as well as the access tag
"use_sidepath" if using the sidepath is compulsory).<br>
</li>
<li>The main categories of the highway, "name" and its
classification like "primary/secondary", can be assigned to the
separate way with Keys like "sidepath:of" or "sidepath:of:name".
Other values like "lit" should anyway be tagged directly on the
separate way.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<p>What is achieved with this? Routers recognize very easily whether
a separate path is associated with a road. For example, if you
want to avoid main roads in routing, you can do so with this
scheme. Routers can, without misusing "name" on the separate way,
provide a street name ("Turn right on XY street"). This variant
also has advantages for rendering. For example, at smaller zoom
levels, renderers could display "cycleway=separate" as
"cycleway=track" while skipping separate paths for better clarity.</p>
<p>The problem remains that physically non-existent road crossings
("wildly crossing the street"), which in reality represent a
crossing possibility for many users, are still not available for
routing. In my opinion, this problem is not very relevant if
separate ways are well mapped (which they often are unfortunately
not!) and all essential routable connections are in the database.
At the beginning and at the end of the route, people can use their
brains ("destination across the street") if their routers do not
solve this task for them. If there are major detours on the way,
routable connections or suitable access tags (e.g. "foot=yes,
wheelchair=no") are missing. Or it is a crossing possibility which
I do not want to get from a router because of its dangers. In this
context it might be more important to find a way to distinguish
between physical/formal and "wild"/informal connections and to
raise awareness for the use of access tags for different user
groups (like wheelchair, bicycle with trailer).</p>
<p>- Alex -<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 19.09.20 um 00:54 schrieb Alan
Mackie:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAEPvJGr23tC15y_28tZw7RsEtjcMx98+YPWptRpw1p2mT-z_JA@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 21:35, Tobias Knerr <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:osm@tobias-knerr.de"><osm@tobias-knerr.de></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On 17.09.20 02:35, Taskar Center wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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 sidewalk schema
proposal
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sidewalk_schema"><https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sidewalk_schema></a>
from several years ago.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Your sidewalk proposal unfortunately doesn't really address the crucial
shortcoming of separately mapped sidewalks: The lack of a reliable
mechanism for figuring out which section of road a given sidewalk way
belongs to.
I agree that we should be able to give sidewalks their own geometry, but
we _also_ need the relationship between sidewalk and road. So far, all
the proposals attempting to support the former end up sacrificing the
latter.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Was this meant to be one of the purposes of associated street relations?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
There have been some promising discussions recently around the
sidepath_of idea, but that's still just brainstorming. Until a practical
solution is found and actually used in the database, sidewalk mapping
will remain a choice between two options that are broken in different ways.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I hadn't heard this one. Do you have a link to the discussion? I would
personally prefer sidewalk_of or walkway_of if we were to go this route
though. Sidepath sounds like something that's branching to me.
Both associated street and sidepath_of still have the issue of when you're
allowed to jump from one to the other, kerbs can be stepped over by most,
railing less so (they're often to keep pedestrians out of blindspots). It
must be difficult to tell if a sidewalk is separated specifically because
the transition from one to the other is more thoroughly blocked and not
simply as an added level of detail with no more than the normal impediment
to foot traffic. The only thing I've seen discussed that might work for
this was in a talk about way and street areas.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
As for the main issue of the thread: I would welcome a clear definition
for the meaning of width. In my own mapping and when writing the
relevant code in OSM2World, I have counted sidewalks etc. as part of the
road's width if they are mapped as tags on the main way. But I would of
course change that if there finally was a documented and widely
agreed-upon recommendation. I don't care so much which one it is - but
we need one.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>