[Tagging] Another sidewalk question

Josh Doe josh at joshdoe.com
Sun Aug 28 03:25:51 BST 2011

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> 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
> mapped?

Yes, crossings that are unmarked should be mapped if they are in fact
crossings, i.e. if they are used or intended to be used on a regular
basis. Some hints might be that there are dropped kerbs (curb cuts) on
other side of a street, or if a path comes in perpendicularly (say
from a park or forest) and ends at the road; in both of these cases
you should certainly have a connection between the road and the
footway/path. One of the benefits of doing so is that it enables
routing (whether or not it's a safe route to follow).

>>>> 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?
> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=hillsborough+and+memorial&hl=en&ll=27.99668,-82.581544&spn=0.001896,0.002025&sll=27.99685,-82.581777&sspn=0.001896,0.002025&vpsrc=6&gl=us&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=27.996679,-82.581437&panoid=wuOm8S7pnbuRpxx802nJlQ&cbp=12,222.03,,0,10.97
> I don't know, but it's certainly not how people are supposed to cross
> the intersection.

That's one ugly intersection! There are dropped kerbs on the raised
part of the island, so one should have a highway=footway on the island
and in the road to connect to the sidewalks on either end. From kerb
to kerb I'd add footway=crossing. But yes, the striped area is a
shoulder (and might also be part of the traffic island depending upon
the exact definition of traffic island). However again, since there
are intersecting nodes with the road and links, a router *could* send
someone along the road, though of course that would be foolish because
it is somewhat longer and less safe.


More information about the Tagging mailing list