[Imports] Uploading sidewalks in San Jose, California, US

James james2432 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 20 10:13:43 UTC 2017

I'm sure you know this, but it's not just street crossings(intersections)
you need to connect, service roads example: parking lot entrances and exits
also need to be connected

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Nick Bolten <nbolten at gmail.com> wrote:

> The fact that small disconnected pedestrian islands breaks routing is a
> problem for routers more than the map, although high-quality pedestrian
> transportation network data is the ideal. It will never be the case that
> the entire pedestrian network is added all at once, or without disconnected
> portions. On the router end, it should be as simple as either removing
> disconnected subgraphs or preventing disconnected subgraphs from being
> selected during the initial 'find the closest valid way' step.
> I'm in contact with the mappers putting in the time to map pedestrian ways
> in San Jose and they're putting together a dataset of street crossings to
> start importing. I'd like to suggest that we support their endeavor and
> time commitments by supporting the inclusion of street crossings, rather
> than discouraging mapping via threats of reverts on changesets. Everyone's
> at the table and working to improve the data.
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 3:44 PM Michael Reichert <osm-ml at michreichert.de>
> wrote:
>> Hi Minh,
>> this is a follow-up of the discussion of changeset 52318833
>> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52318833).
>> The sidewalk data has been lying around in OSM for about a month. It was
>> errorenouos and made pedestrian routing unusable. An import should not
>> reduce the data quality.
>> There were only few comments on the mailing list during the discussion
>> of this import but this does not mean that the imported data is immune.
>> The import guidelines are rules which *reduces* the probability that the
>> import will be reverted if you follow them. If there are serious issues,
>> a revert (as one method of cleanup) is possible.
>> I asked to fix the issue on this mailing list and added changeset
>> comments to some changesets of some users who participated the import to
>> make them aware. I did not see a real progress on the issue and decided
>> to mention a deadline. If a manual cleanup (manual addition of
>> connections) starts, there is a progress and I achieved what I want:
>> Imported data should not be in OSM in a half-baked state.
>> A revert does not mean that the data can never be imported again. If
>> there is an improved plan which includes addition of
>> crossings and a proper connection to the road network at the time the
>> data is uploaded (or within a few hours afterwards), I will agree with
>> the import. I offer to produce a OSM XML file which can be loaded into
>> JOSM. The objects will have their old IDs and history will be preserved.
>> If you avoid editing in the same area and regularly upload and download
>> during your activity, it is even possible that multiple users in
>> parallel re-import (and add connections) the data.
>> Am 16.10.2017 um 08:16 schrieb Minh Nguyen:
>> > That is indeed a problem we hope to eradicate once the crosswalk mapping
>> > project gets underway. It isn't unique to imports, though: for example,
>> > the adjacent town of Los Gatos has been mapped fairly extensively with
>> > sidewalks, and many crossings are missing there too:
>> >
>> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_
>> foot&route=37.22855%2C-121.97027%3B37.22866%2C-121.97025
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_
>> foot&route=37.22914%2C-121.96464%3B37.22918%2C-121.96475
>> >
>> >
>> > Even where crossings were added, they weren't connected to the road
>> > network, leading to very roundabout routing:
>> >
>> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_
>> foot&route=37.22733%2C-121.96631%3B37.22697%2C-121.96609
>> >
>> >
>> > These problems come up often from mappers who are unfamiliar with
>> > pedestrian router needs. I mention these examples not to pass the blame
>> > but rather to point out that the problem is not new in this area, yet
>> > we're working deliberately to ensure that mappers won't have to worry as
>> > much about these issues in the future.
>> >
>> > [1] http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/smw versus
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/smv
>> A problem in an adjacent town cannot be used as a justification for
>> deficiencies of an import. We are much more liberal with people mapping
>> sidewalks manually than imports. An import adds more data in a shorter
>> time and a problem in the process can therefore break more. That's why
>> the import discussion is necessary but in this case people who offer
>> their spare time to give regularly advice were busy with other things
>> and forgot your import.
>> Best regards
>> Michael
>> --
>> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
>> ausgenommen)
>> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
>> _______________________________________________
>> Imports mailing list
>> Imports at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
> _______________________________________________
> Imports mailing list
> Imports at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20171020/ca4afcc8/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Imports mailing list