[Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks
johnw at mac.com
Fri Jul 14 21:56:26 UTC 2017
> On Jul 14, 2017, at 11:32 PM, Nick Bolten <nbolten at gmail.com> wrote:
> > --> need to add all driveways?
> This is generally a good idea - and to make sure they share a node.
To me, if you are considering adding sidewalks, you’ve already committed to adding the service roads/tracks/etc.
Adding the hidden crossing (crossing=unmarked) IMHO is the thing to be discussed.
An example of this issue is where a road with no sidewalks meets another road with sidewalks, but does not cross it (and is not in an urban environ, so there is no real paint to show a crossing=zebra) . Do you add a crossing=unmarked that goes from the sidewalk to the node of the road’s T junction? People on the sidewalk far side of the T junction will expect to be able to cross the street there and continue on the road.
In my region, even on major national roads sidewalks abruptly stop, let alone on tertiary roads. Usually a road is being brought up to a modern standard section by section, but the surrounding roads are not. A building project forced the adjacent roads to be upgraded, but the beginning and end of those roads are still the older narrow versions, such as this tertiary road here:
Because where the sidewalk abruptly ends is dangerous for peds, I put in an unmarked crossing to the other side, and linked the sidewalk to the road where it ends to the east.
I am committed to mapping all sidewalks as separate ways, because they often have routing completely separate from roads in Japan, and the nature of them appearing and disappearing be mapped with a separate way is the best way to show this - but how peds “rejoin” the road when it does end is what is not documented in OSM.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging