[Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

Simone Saviolo simone.saviolo at gmail.com
Thu Aug 25 09:30:40 BST 2011

2011/8/25 Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com>

> On 8/24/2011 8:59 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Nathan Edgars II<neroute2 at gmail.com>
>>  wrote:
>>> On 8/24/2011 8:07 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Nathan Edgars II<neroute2 at gmail.com>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> On 8/24/2011 3:44 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
>>>>>> Secondly, I'm not sure that the
>>>>>> way of the crossing would be a highway=footway. Isn't that supposed to
>>>>>> be a separate "carriageway"?
>>>>> How is this not a separate linear object?
>>>>> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=orlando&hl=en&ll=28.535671,-81.374757&spn=0.001046,0.002575&gl=us&t=k&z=20&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=28.535671,-81.374757&panoid=DE6JLCTtWf6zny20lLARPw&cbp=12,188.61,,0,8.06
>>>> A vehicle could travel between the two.
>>>>  The two what? I'm talking about the object represented by
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/67386026 .
>> And you're asking how it is not separate from what?
>>  I'm confused by this whole thread, not least by your apparent answering
> of your own question with two more. If you want to know exactly what Simone
> Saviolo meant, don't ask me.

Woah, stop :-) What I meant is:
- we've always said that each way should represent a linear feature;
- for highways, this means a carriageway. If a road has a single two-way
carriageway, i.e., if a car going from A to B can go on the opposite lane
(the one used by those who go from B to A), then it should be drawn as a
single way. If there is an actual physical separation such as a barrier (for
example on motorways) then there are two carriageways and two ways should be
drawn (*usually* each one would be one-way).
- it is disputed whether to draw two ways where two lanes are divided by a
traffic island (which is a legal strict separation, even stricter than the
continuous line, but not a physical separation)
- it is even disputed whether to draw a different way for PSV-reserved
lanes, which are usually delimited by some kind of kerbs (albeit usually
low) and occasionally allow PSVs to ignore a one-way restriction

Considering the above, I can hardly see how a crossing (either for
pedestrians or cyclists or horsemen) would deserve its own way (especially a
highway=*). The only "need" for it - and mind it, it seems quite a good
point to have it IMHO - would be routing. For sure, if it seems fit to draw
the way, it should not be a highway=footway (using pedestrians as an

I suggest using highway=crossing for that. Using it on nodes is only
appropriate to mark at what point of the road vehicles may encounter
pedestrians trying to cross. Secondly, highway=crossing ways would be
clearly indicated as routable segments that are not actually part of, for
example, a cycleway network.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20110825/4bb47ed1/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list