[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
josh at joshdoe.com
Tue Mar 22 15:56:24 GMT 2011
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:04 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/3/22 Josh Doe <josh at joshdoe.com>:
>> 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
Ah, I think I understand all the confusion now, as we have different
models entirely. In my (and I'm guessing David's) view of things,
sidewalks are NOT just another lane, but indeed a separate way.
Perhaps even our definitions of sidewalks are different. I think you
are thinking of city style sidewalks, where there is no barrier
between the sidewalk and the road. My sidewalk is not always strictly
parallel to the road, and indeed sometimes meanders near and far from
the road, and has barriers such as kerbs, grassy strips, and perhaps
even parking spaces between the sidewalk and the road. Let me quote
David's proposal: "When the sidewalk is on its own, i.e. is a
structure separated from the main street, it should be mapped
separately as highway=footway." So yes indeed, David and I are not
re-purposing highway=footway, since we are not applying it to lanes.
However I would say considering a sidewalk as a lane is inappropriate
if there is any barrier whatsoever between it and other lanes. I can
totally get on board with the lane concept for cycle ways, as from my
experience they only have a painted line separating them from the
road, but most sidewalks I know of have a raised kerb which is a
barrier. However I can also imagine that in some areas there are
"sidewalks" that are indeed just another lane next to lanes intended
for motor vehicles, bicycles, etc., with no barrier, and I'd be fine
considering those a lane. A kerb is certainly a barrier however.
Hopefully this clarifies the issue a bit. I certainly can see the two
More information about the Tagging