[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane
catonano at gmail.com
Wed Nov 13 16:23:15 UTC 2019
Il giorno mar 12 nov 2019 alle ore 23:54 Nick Bolten <nbolten at gmail.com> ha
> You make a very good point! A road can have a pedestrian lane, shoulder,
> both, or neither, so it wouldn't make any sense for a pedestrian lane to be
> a type of shoulder. The widths do vary quite a bit as well, regionally.
> > You mean a situation like this?:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Sidewalk_and_crossing.svg
> One very similar to that, yes! I think I normally wouldn't add
> sidewalk=both to any length of the highway=residential. Is that a typical
> thing to do? I would assume that meant the highway=residential street had
> its own short piece of sidewalk, when it actually doesn't.
> The challenge I'm describing is in reliably associating the crosswalk with
> the pedestrian paths. After all, the crosswalk is a node on a different
> street way. I know that I could do it 99.x% of the time, but it will
> require using some graph traversal approaches that most people aren't
> familiar with. Plus, those cases where I couldn't reliably determine it
> could be very important. I suspect this is one of the reasons I haven't
> found anyone using these data in concert (sidewalk=both + highway=crossing)
> to do pedestrian routing.
> Mapping for a router isn't the end-all-be-all of this kind of data, of
> course, but it is one thing that would be hard to do with this tagging
> schema. I'd be interested to know if there are other data consumer plans
> for the data, since use does dictate what the schema looks like. Making
> streets be ways was a conscious choice informed by routing, for example!
I didn't know that representing streets as lines was a choice made to
This made routing for cyclists, pedestrians and impaired people more
And I hope everyone can see why that's disappointing
Choosing a representation always has political effects
In this regard, I find this talk quite on point
> > I would simply connect the sidewalk way with the road where the
> sidewalk ends (and map a barrier=kerb + kerb=* node) and add
> pedestrian_lane=* to the road starting from where the pedestrian lane
> So there would be a segment of footway=sidewalk that is not actually on a
> sidewalk? I've been unsure about what to do in similar situations, like how
> to connect footways to roads without implying there's literally a footway
> on top of the road. Probably worth its own, separate discussion (it was
> discussed previously, but without conclusion), so I won't elaborate.
> > There is a pedestrian lane along the the south-eastern part of the road
> Reichenbachstrasse. On the opposite side there are public steps as well as
> many (currently unmapped) driveways and private footpaths. Mapping the
> pedestrian lane as a separate way would either make it disconnected from
> the steps, driveways and footpaths on the opposite side of the road or you
> would need to add many highway=footway connections from the pedestrian lane
> to the steps, driveways and footpaths, which would make the map very
> > Therefore i strongly advise against mapping pedestrian lanes as separate
> > By the way, the same problem occurs with sidewalks mapped as separate
> Yes, it's a trade-off: the actual pedestrian path's primary connections
> and attributes vs. its association with the street. Neither are actually
> perfect options, which is why I'm suggesting the possibility of redundant
> tagging. Ideally, we'd come up with a universal strategy for relating these
> ways together, but I don't want to monopolize this proposal!
> > I'm not a programmer and therefore don't have concrete plans to use this
> data, but i imagine (and hope) that pedestrian routers could use this data
> to prioritise roads with pedestrian lanes and to tell blind people on which
> side of the road they should walk.
> Maybe it would be helpful to set up a meeting with some organizations that
> serve the visually impaired along with programmers that build routing
> software. We (Taskar Center) might be able to help with that sort of
> meeting, and it would be even better to have organizations from different
> cultures and geographies involved as well. As-is, I think the challenge of
> reliably associating paths with crosswalks is a big one for mapping for
> routing for the blind.
There are 2 talks given at the last osm2019 that I think are on par with
what you are thinking
You might want to get in touch with their authors
This is the first one: Pedestrian Routing
The author argues like effective pedestrian routing
in which the author argues how a previous focusing on routing for cars has
made pedestrian routing more difficult (and he presents a quite complicated
algorithm for extracting information useful for pedestrian routing)
The second one is this one: Is the OSM Data Model creaking ?
The author is involved in a prominent routing service for cyclists and he
makes the point about how effective routing for cyclists is very hard to
I' m very interested in these issues too
I hope that the idea of representing streets as areas can help (as hinted
in the talk about the data model creaking)
Hope this helps
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging