[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk

[David Paleino]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:12:55 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> 2011/3/21 David Paleino <dapal at debian.org>:
> 
> >> I agree with Serge: you would change the meaning of highway=footway
> >> (because to interpret it right after your amendment, you would have to
> >> look at the footway-key as well).
> >
> > Why?
> > Sidewalks are just a particular case of highway=footway. A router that
> > doesn't know about footway=*, can treat the sidewalk just fine, because it
> > is a footway, after all.
> 
> No. Serge's way does tell the router that the sidewalk is just a part
> of the road, and that you can cross the road anytime. Your proposal
> doesn't tell the router this, and it would have to check for the next
> crossing and route you there and back if your target was just on the
> other side of the road.

Then, if you really want, we can just add one tag to the road, say (weird key
name, but just to understand each other): is_crossable_everywhere=yes.

> To not be misunderstood: I prefer explicit sidewalks (=separate ways)
> as I wrote above. But you should not map them as if they were
> independent ways.

They aren't: have you checked my proposal? They're part of the same relation
(street, or associatedStreet).

A router would only check for a highway=crossing node on the way itself if an
option "only cross road at permitted places" is marked. No?

-- 
 . ''`.   Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
 : :'  : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
 `. `'`  GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://deb.li/dapal
   `-   2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20110321/a4132270/attachment-0001.pgp>