[Tagging] Another sidewalk question

Josh Doe josh at joshdoe.com
Sun Aug 28 01:16:57 BST 2011

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Josh Doe <josh at joshdoe.com> wrote:
>> 2011/8/27 Johan Jönsson <johan.j at goteborg.cc>:
>>> I would not tag the white and black-striped area of the road as a sidewalk.
>>> Whoever invented the black-white striping probably did not intend it to be a
>>> designated pedestrian area, more something of a no drive zone, probably some
>>> kind of safety issue concerning the joining roads.
>>> /Johan Jönsson, Sweden-do not know anything about american sidewalks, really.
>> +1. A sidewalk or even just a footway is a separate way, whereas the
>> striped area is really just a shoulder.
> It's not a shoulder.  It's a traffic island.

Partially correct. The traffic island consists of a grassy triangular
area as well as white-striped shoulders.

>> Of course you'd want to make
>> sure you connect the other footways to the roads, so a router can send
>> someone along this strip.
> Not of course.  A better route would be to cross the street and use
> that sidewalk.

Sure, coming from the west along the sidewalk next to S Tampa Ave, it
might be safer to turn right and go along the "link", then turn left
on the other "link" and get back on the sidewalk continuing to the
east along S Tampa Ave. However you'll still connect the sidewalks to
the road, so a routing engine can send someone along a faster and more
direct route along S Tampa Ave on the shoulder, or a safer route along
the "links".

>> In the future someone might tag the section
>> of road with something like "shoulder:width=4 ft",
>> "shoulder:surface=asphalt", "shoulder:type=striped", etc., which
>> routers could use to determine the safety level this section.
> Except that it's not a shoulder.

It is a shoulder, but it's part of a traffic island.


More information about the Tagging mailing list