[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane
selfishseahorse at gmail.com
Sun Nov 24 21:49:33 UTC 2019
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 at 01:03, Nick Bolten <nbolten at gmail.com> wrote:
> These errors are an artifact of not knowing where the sidewalks and crossings actually interface and having to guess about them.
It should be possible to solve this problem by specifying the width of
the carriageway (width=*) and of the sidewalk(s)
(sidewalk[:left/right]:width=*), shouldn't it? (This may be useful
information anyway, no matter if the sidewalks are mapped separately
or not.) If it isn't possible to specify the widths, the information
to which sidewalk a crosswalk belongs could be given with a relation.
> In contrast, pedestrian ways that are directly connected to one another can be analyzed using any transportation network software and are compatible with common OSM routers.
This is true, but mapping sidewalks with separate ways isn't
unproblematical either, especially if there aren't any marked
crosswalks: mapping unmarked crossings is often impossible because not
verifiable, but not mapping crossings results in disconnected
sidewalks. A particular problem are T crossings with sidewalks on both
sides of both streets, as for example here:
Besides, mapping sidewalks with separate ways requires quite good
aerial imagery, which unfortunately isn't available everywhere
(example ). Furthermore it takes much more time than adding
sidewalk=* tags and you can break more – people that map sidewalks
ways often don't map unmarked crossings, which results in unusable
sidewalks (example ).
Compared to sidewalk, mapping pedestrian lanes with separate
highway=footway ways would even be more problematical, because the
pedestrian lanes are a part of the carriageway of the road and (in
some countries) can also be used by vehicles in order to make way for
More information about the Tagging