[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Mar 22 15:04:23 GMT 2011

2011/3/22 Josh Doe <josh at joshdoe.com>:
> Martin,
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:32 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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>:
>>>> 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).
> Adding footway=sidewalk is not redefining highway=footway, just like
> saying service=parking_aisle is not redefining highway=service, rather
> it is a refinement.

I disagree here. In the case of service it is a refinement, but in the
case of footway it is not, because highway=service is the tag to use
for smaller service ways, but highway=footway is not the tag you use
for lanes (a kind of which sidewalks are), it is a tag that you use
only on independent ways. The sidewalk is already comprised in the
main road according to our data model, and adding a separate
highway=footway indicates that there is a barrier between the footway
and the road. To overcome this, you would have to use highway=footway
on lanes / sidewalks, what is not in accordance with the current


More information about the Tagging mailing list