[Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

Nick Bolten nbolten at gmail.com
Sat Jul 15 07:24:16 UTC 2017


To Marc:

> Why ? What is the benefit of adding driveways of 3-5 meters long ?
I experimented with it in my neighborhood and the only thing it does
is confuse navigation programs. My neighbour's driveway is longer than
mine (it's a company) and now OsmAnd insists on taking his, because it
comes closer to my house.

In my case, it's for pedestrians: it is often a de facto ramp from the
sidewalk to the street (and vice versa), which is a practical route for
many wheelchair users. It can also imply an uneven surface as you go from
sidewalk to driveway to sidewalk, which can be a barrier to some.

It doesn't really add much in terms of routing cars, like you note.

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 12:18 AM Nick Bolten <nbolten at gmail.com> wrote:

> To John:
>
> Those are all very good points. This one is particularly interesting:
>
> >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.
>
> I don't think we really have adequate tags to describe that situation, so
> everyone makes due by either doing what you suggest (a half-crossing) or
> connecting footways/sidewalks directly to roads. Neither makes perfect
> semantic sense: it's not really a road crossing and it's also not really a
> sidewalk, it's just a change of path that a pedestrian would realistically
> need to make. It should probably use an entirely new tag for a pedestrian
> transition of some sort (not unlike a *_link for roads), but that would of
> course need to be hashed out in a separate proposal. In the meantime, I
> also tend to use highway=footway, footway=crossing, crossing=unmarked to
> connect an ending sidewalk to the road.
>
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:46 PM Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> My strategy in this kind of case is to add those driveways and virtual
>> crossings that are useful for routing purposes. So if there is a
>> junction, if there is a driveway opposite it, I will add that driveway
>> (or maybe just the part of the driveway upto the sidewalk), if there
>> is none, but people can cross there (in the case you describe: If
>> there is an interruption in the hedge), I add a footway from the
>> sidewalk to the junction, if neither is the case, I add the driveway
>> or crossing point that is closest to the junction (on both sides if
>> necessary).
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Another typical case
>> >
>> > - no explicitly marked crossings
>> > - sidewalk parallel to road
>> > - kerb separating sidewalk from road
>> > - hedge, interrupted for each driveway and at the junctions, placed on
>> > sidewalk, parallel with road.
>> >
>> > --> need to add all driveways ?
>> > --> need to draw virtual crossings at junctions ?
>> >
>> > m
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Mike N <niceman at att.net> wrote:
>> >> On 7/14/2017 8:14 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> but merge sidewalk with the road where the is no space/barier between
>> >>>> them.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> and that's were the discussion starts. When I asked when one has to
>> >>> draw a separate sidewalk a few weeks ago on this mailing list someone
>> >>> answered: as soon as there is a kerb.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>   Similarly, I have been combining sidewalks with roads where there is
>> no
>> >> separation.   But when there is a small grass separation from the
>> roadway,
>> >> they are drawn separately.  For those cases, it is usually allowed to
>> cross
>> >> the grassy separation and the road to get to the opposite sidewalk.
>> >>
>> >>   Throwing out the R word here - what about a relation that defines
>> which
>> >> disconnected ways could be walked to or across from any point on a
>> current
>> >> way?   That would also include the road since there would be no
>> barrier.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Tagging mailing list
>> >> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Tagging mailing list
>> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> André Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170715/58312df7/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list