[Tagging] Another sidewalk question

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Sun Aug 28 02:15:06 BST 2011

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Josh Doe <josh at joshdoe.com> wrote:
> 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:
>>> 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".

I just checked other places, and it doesn't seem that we do that.  Are
unmarked (i.e. non-crosswalk) crossing areas even supposed to be

>>> 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.

Would you also call this a shoulder?

I don't know, but it's certainly not how people are supposed to cross
the intersection.

More information about the Tagging mailing list