[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Mar 22 10:32:17 GMT 2011


2011/3/21 David Paleino <dapal at debian.org>:
> 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).


If you need a relation for every sidewalk, it is clear that you are
redefining footway, because not interpreting this relation will lead
to misunderstanding for all footways (they would be understood as
independent ways and routing would work worse then with no sidewalk
mapped at all).

Cheers,
Martin



More information about the Tagging mailing list