[Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

John Willis johnw at mac.com
Thu Jul 13 14:08:16 UTC 2017

> On Jul 13, 2017, at 10:28 PM, Svavar Kjarrval <svavar at kjarrval.is> wrote:
> when the "common sense" approach would be to "just go
> across the street".

This is a question I have too, and I’m wondering if this is something you solve at the tagging or engine level. 

Afaik, this is why the roads have the sidewalk=left/right/both tag - so the sidewalk is considered “part of the road” and routing engines do not have to think about what side of the road you are on. 

Places with complicated and separate footpaths need Highway=footway, but this is the downside to that. 

I wonder if adding foot=yes tag to the roads without sidewalks and and foot=no to ways where it is dangerous would help. 

In places complicated enough to warrant separate footpaths, then assuming they *cannot* cross the street wherever they want (and forced to go to crosswalks or signals) is by far the best choice. But where this complicated sidewalk tagging ends, and the minor, residential, and service roads without sidewalks begin interests me greatly. Is there a “footway_link” ? Not a traditional _link road, but a logical link to when sidewalks end - do they need some kind of “link” to the adjacent road so Routing continues on? 

Currently, in some situations I link them to the adjacent road segment or across an intersection with crossing+crossing=unmarked, but I am unsure if this is necessary or proper. 


More information about the Tagging mailing list