[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway

Tobias Knerr osm at tobias-knerr.de
Wed May 11 19:20:10 BST 2011

Josh Doe wrote:
>> So unless I'm mistaken, separate
>> areas for the individual "lanes" wouldn't provide more information;
>> they'd just add more clutter.
> I think this depends on whether you adopt the "sidewalk as a separate
> way" method or the sidewalk=left/right/both/no method. In my area of
> suburbia, I'm using separate ways, so I would likewise use two
> separate areas.

Just because it seems intuitively consistent, or is there some practical
advantage - something that can only be expressed with these separate areas?

Separate sidewalk ways have advantages (you can properly connect other
ways and crossings to them, you can add tags such as surface, ...),
that's why I prefer them, too. Separate areas don't seem to let you
express any additional information, so I currently don't see a reason to
use them.

In fact, I think that a /single/ area:highway=* has an additional
advantage precisely if you map sidewalks and such as separate ways: it
becomes more feasible for applications to find out which sidewalk ways
belong to a highway because the highway and sidewalk ways are in the
same area:highway=* boundary. You wouldn't need relations or other
solutions to connect them.

-- Tobias Knerr

More information about the Tagging mailing list