[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link
selfishseahorse at gmail.com
Wed Nov 20 10:33:21 UTC 2019
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019, 04:43 Joseph Eisenberg, <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
In my opinion, there's only little use in splitting roads at
intersections only to indicate that a short part of a highway=* way is
part of the carriageway of another road.
However, this is a bit different with ending sidewalks or steps that
run parallel to the road: tagging the connection with the road
highway=footway + footway=sidewalk or highway=steps would pretend that
there were an abrupt change of the direction of the sidewalk or steps
by 90°, which is a bad representation of the actual geometry (example
). Besides, continuing steps up to the highway=* way would distort
the steps, which is especially problematical with short steps and a
wide road. For example, continuing highway=steps of 4 steps with a
length of 35 cm each to the centre of the road that is 8.4 m away from
the last step would let you assume that one step is 2.45 m long
Thanks you all for your feedback so far!
More information about the Tagging