<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">The reason why we were asked to add them is for pedestrian security assessment and urban planning. When all sidewalks and crossing are mapped, we can measure crossing distances and estimate the probability of accidents, which can save lives when the cities add curb extensions (avancées de trottoirs). We use openstreetmap data to convince government officials that it is statistically better to take them into account when planning new neighbourhoods or enhance existing ones. Also, it allows us to get better precision and calculate penalties when routiong at traffic signals which must be crossed twice by pedestrian at some intersections. OpenStreetMap objective is to map what is there with the best precision available. When aerial photography was not precise enough for sidewalks, it was not feasible to add them, but now we get precise aerial photos that permit better representativity of the physical world. I can tell you that the amount of precision and completeness in openstreetmap data will increase rapidly in the coming years. And the COVID-19 pandemy will increase the need for precise and complete mapping of urban environments, so we must deal with it accordingly.<div class="">Mapping sidewalks as separate ways is now in the official wiki and has been accepted by the community by vote, so we must now find the best way to accomodate everyone. For now, I am just trying to know if we must add bicycle=no to them.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">About the routing directions, we must add the street names to sidewalks (as we do in my team), otherwise like Martin said, routing engines will tell people to turn left, turn right instead of turn left on A street, then turn right on B street, etc.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 3, 2020, at 13:51, Harald Kliems <<a href="mailto:kliems@gmail.com" class="">kliems@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 10:17 AM Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca <<a href="mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" class="">talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" class=""><div class=""></div><div class="">What cities allow cycling on sidewalks anyway, seriously ? This sounds so inadequate. That it is tolerated is one thing, but outright legal or encouraged ? Makes no sense to me.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div class="">In the US that's pretty common. For example here in Madison (Wisconsin), sidewalk riding is generally allowed by ordinance, except where buildings directly abut the sidewalk (I manually tag those as bicycle=no).</div><div class=""> Harald.<br class=""></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Talk-ca mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" class="">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br class="">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>