[Tagging] Proposal for standardization of sidewalk schema (+ import)
f at zz.de
Tue Aug 2 10:53:44 UTC 2016
On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 11:11:37PM +0100, Philip Barnes wrote:
> 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.
This is a point i aswell see - In Germany we have a lot mixed/joined
Pedestrian/Cycling sidewalks - Either seperated by color of the pavement
or even shared space.
Now for fixing the cyclist routing we would need a short snippet
of way between the sidewalks and the road on every lowered kerb.
(Needed for wheelchair too)
You have the default crossing on the left - Bicycle and Pedestrian
seperated. You have lowered kerbs on the right front which is mapped
as a service/driveway but on the left in the distance you see
lowered kerbs for the garages. How would this proposal
fit into mapping this?
> 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
Thats the point. I am missing more complex mapping examples
than the single, simple crossing.
Florian Lohoff f at zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Tagging