[Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 83, Issue 3

Meg Drouhard meg.drouhard at gmail.com
Tue Aug 2 18:46:24 UTC 2016


Hi Phil and François,

Thanks for your feedback.  To my knowledge, there is no universal agreement
that pedestrians consider the sidewalk part of the road.  As François, the
pedestrian routing applications with which I'm familiar don't actually
route pedestrians to cross at any "imaginary" point along the street, so
even if pedestrians may choose to cross at any point, routing applications
would not need the imaginary crossings because they could route to cross at
marked crossings.

We believe our proposal actually facilitates individualized pedestrian
routing by supporting different cost functions for crossings and pedestrian
ways depending on an individual's needs.  Additionally, for a pedestrian to
be able to cross a street safely at any point, the routing application
requires awareness of sidewalk coverage on both sides.  We believe this
awareness is most simply represented as graph edges, which is supported by
our proposal.  The annotation of separate ways, marked crossings, and kerb
ramps at crossings also adheres to OSM best practices with respect to
representing physical reality (vs. imaginary crossings).

François, with regards to your second question, our schema maintains the
current OSM tagging for pedestrian areas (plazas, pedestrian-only streets,
etc.).  Individual routers would have to decide how to digest such areas
and route through them.  Do you have specific instance in mind that we
should consider for our proposal?

Thanks again for your feedback and we'll update our discussion page with
these points.

Best,

Meg

2016-08-02 1:03 GMT-07:00 <tagging-request at openstreetmap.org>:

> Send Tagging mailing list submissions to
>         tagging at openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         tagging-request at openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         tagging-owner at openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Tagging digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (midwife) (David Picard)
>    2. Formal proposal: access=permit (Kevin Kenny)
>    3. Proposal for standardization of sidewalk schema (+ import)
>       (Meg Drouhard)
>    4. Re: bus networks in Hong Kong (Martin Koppenhoefer)
>    5. Re: Proposal for standardization of sidewalk schema (+
>       import) (Philip Barnes)
>    6. Re: bus networks in Hong Kong (Michael Tsang)
>    7. Re: Proposal for standardization of sidewalk schema (+
>       import) (François Lacombe)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 23:11:37 +0100
> From: Philip Barnes <phil at trigpoint.me.uk>
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Proposal for standardization of sidewalk schema
>         (+ import)
> Message-ID: <1470089497.3595.8.camel at trigpoint.me.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> 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)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 10:03:30 +0200
> From: François Lacombe <fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>         <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Proposal for standardization of sidewalk schema
>         (+      import)
> Message-ID:
>         <CAG0ygLcHdK=g0Y10Uj0xdpQzAdJi=
> OUbtEi8TheZezDK3LY0Jw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> [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 ?
>
> Philp,
> 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 !
>
> François
> 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.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Tagging Digest, Vol 83, Issue 3
> **************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160802/f0969753/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list