[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link
joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Tue Nov 19 03:41:46 UTC 2019
I'm skeptical about the need to tag this differently.
If we do this, wouldn't we also need to tag differently a "T"
intersection of a `highway=residential` into a `highway=trunk`?
Doing this for every intersection between a path and road, or lower
classification road with a high classification road, would be a large
amount of extra work for mappers, so it should only be done if there
is no other way to get this information.
But roads are tagged with "width=" and "lanes" already. So if that
information (which is generally useful in many ways) is added, a
database user can use the width (or approximate width, based on number
of lanes) of the main road to approximate how many meters of the
intersecting footway are in the main carriageway.
When rendering, the highway is going to be wider than the actual width
at all but the very highest zoom levels, so again this is not needed
for most cases, and if someone is rendering very high zoom levels to
show lots of detail, they can do more pre-processing to get it right,
or we can map area:highway - and if that area is mapped, there is no
need to tag section of footway or cycleway to say "this
footway/cycleway is inside of an area:highway polygon" - the geometry
in the database says this already.
Openstreetmap's most valueable, nay, PRICELESS, resource is the hours
of time that individual mappers volunteer to add and fix data. We
should not suggest that mappers do extra work so that database users
can save a few steps or processing cycles.
(I'm also a little concerned that "footway=link" may seem similar to
"highway=tertiary_link" and "highway=motorway_link" but this could be
fixed with a different value)
- Joseph Eisenberg
On 11/19/19, Clifford Snow <clifford at snowandsnow.us> wrote:
> First off I like this proposal and agree that it be applied more broadly.
> However there is a difference between a motorway=link (and similar) and a
> footway=link. A motorway=link is a physical feature unlike a footway=link.
> A footway=link is more of an attempt to bridge vector representation of a
> footway and how it connects to a vector representation of a road. In
> reality, they are adjacent features. If highways=* were drawn as areas, we
> wouldn't need a footway link but still need a motorway=link. Then there is
> the question of how footway=link should be rendered. I would be happy with
> a dashed gray line to indicate that it's just a connection for a router.
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
More information about the Tagging