[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways

Phil! Gold phil_g at pobox.com
Sun Apr 3 14:38:14 BST 2011

* Ed Hillsman <ehillsman at tampabay.rr.com> [2011-04-02 22:26 -0400]:
> With regard to routing, sidewalks on college campuses, in parks, and
> in cemeteries may be interior to a large area bounded by streets,
> and as a result some may not have an associated street to use for a
> name.

I don't think those would qualify as "sidewalks" for purposes of this
discussion, since the two proposals both only consider pedestrian walkways
that run along and adjacent to roads.  If a walkway doesn't have those
characteristics, it would just get tagged as highway=footway (probably
with surface=paved), and given a name= only if it has its own, distinct,

> Would it work to add a tag "associated_street" and then simply list the
> name of the street? For example, highway=footway,
> associated_street="East Fowler Avenue".

This might not be a bad idea.  It makes the association without using a
relation (about which there have been concerns raised regarding the
complexity of handling, both for mappers and data consumers).

> A value of "none" could be coded if the sidewalk does not parallel a
> street.

I think that the absence of the tag could reasonably be assumed to be
equivalent to "no associated street" but, like oneway=no, it doesn't hurt
to have an explicit value for that case.

...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2  print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248  9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's the
---- --- --

More information about the Tagging mailing list