[Tagging] Another sidewalk question
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
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?
> 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