[Tagging] Proposal for standardization of sidewalk schema (+ import)

François Lacombe fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com
Tue Aug 2 08:03:30 UTC 2016

[Sent from a phone]

Hi all,

To begin with positive side of things, big thank you Meg to propose a
consistent and scalable scheme out of this mess.
I completely agree with the current lack of consistency and would like to
encourage the search of better description and network approach

What about situations when pavement areas are drawn with areas + multi
polygon involving buildings around a whole block ?
Should the ways you propose come over this ?

Pavement deduction from roads is a pain and often footway=* tags won't suit
the mappers needs according of what seen in situation.
What about a road where pavement are regularly separated with several
square meters of grass ?
Even if people can cross the roads wherever they want, routing engines
should only encourage them to do so on protected crossings.
This is just because they will always be able to cross there even in case
of traffic jam and the time given for a foot trip have to take care of it.

All the best !

Le 2 août 2016 12:13 AM, "Philip Barnes" <phil at trigpoint.me.uk> a écrit :

> On Mon, 2016-08-01 at 14:35 -0700, Meg Drouhard wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Our team is proposing a standardization of sidewalk tagging
> > conventions in OSM to simplify pedestrian network annotations and
> > better represent the physical reality of sidewalk ways.  This
> > proposal is particularly concerned with features of sidewalks that
> > may aid or impede travel for people with limited mobility.
> >
> > Our schema proposal is available here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/
> > wiki/Proposed_features/sidewalk_schema.
> >
> > You can also read more about our project and group here: www.openside
> > walks.com.
> >
> > Through the Imports list, we are also proposing to jump start
> > sidewalk annotation by importing open municipal data from the city of
> > Seattle (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seattle,_Washington/Sidew
> > alk_Import).
> >
> > We appreciate any feedback you may have either through our discussion
> > pages or by email.
> >
> >
> The first problem I see is that mapping sidewalks as a separate way
> should not be done unless there is a physical separation. For a
> pedestrian the sidewalk is a part of the road.
> Mapping as separate ways can mess up routing for pedestrians who can
> cross the road wherever they wish.
> Mapping in the way you propose would leave the problem of where a
> mapper would then place sufficient 'imaginary' crossings to not break
> pedestrian routing
> Phil (trigpoint)
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160802/b983dae9/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list