[Tagging] When does highway=footway become highway=pedestrian?

[Jass Kurn]

I think this example is a bit more complex if you look into it, and there
are a couple of issues that are worthy of separate discussion thread.

Firstly,  when should highway=footway become a pedestrian area? Ultimately
a subjective decision, but I personally consider whether the way has
widened to beyond 5 meters and whether movement of pedestrians is not
expected to be simply linear. Some pedestrian ways wider than 5m exist
because a common 2m wide footway/sidewalk would not be wide enough to
contain a large number of pedestrians and I would not map these as a
Pedestrian Area. In the given example the location has clearly been widened
to create an area, and I think it is acceptable to map this as an area with
a way mapped through it.

Second issue, specific to this example, is the impact of access to
bicycles. Current, and historic street level imagery shows this location
had a standard approx 2m sidewalk up to 2016 at which time the location was
developed to create the current arrangement. Importantly there are now
statutory "shared use" signs at the entrance to this area/way. This means
there is, with regard to UK legal definitions, no footway/sidewalk present.
The way and area falls legally under the UK legal definition of Cycle Track
(with shared use by pedestrians). The use of "path" is questionable, and
appears controversial for UK mapping, with the most common way to map
statutory Cycle Tracks being to use cycleway tagging, with in this case
pedestrian=yes. The current path was mapped as a cycleway and was only
changed to a path five months ago.

I'd argue the overall highway design of this area is an abomination, and
fortunately statutory highways design guidance issued by the UK Government
in 2020 should mean this mess of a design should not happen again.
Hopefully a clear separated cycleway is created or marked adjacent to the
main road in the near future.

Third issue(?). So I'm arguing the whole area is legally, in the UK, a
Cycle Track shared with pedestrians. So is the pedestrian area tag
suitable? I still argue it was. ( I don't think we have a tag for areas
that are equally pedestrian & cycle areas?). I'd map, or reinstate the
cycleway, and retain the pedestrian area around it with the addition of
bicycle=designated to the area.


Jass



On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 at 12:11, nathan case <nathancase at outlook.com> wrote:

> > highway=pedestrian area=yes
>
> > seems to be not fitting for this, in my opinion.
>
>
>
> I agree. I can see the justification in why it has been done – the mapper
> wants to show the pedestrian area, rather than just a linear way and this
> is the only(?) way it’ll get rendered. However, the actual object doesn’t
> really match the highway=pedestrian description. It would seem odd to allow
> a supplementary tag (area=yes) to change (or ignore) the meaning of the
> primary tag (highway=pedestrian).
>
>
>
>
>
> > highway=pedestrian area=yes misused for footway/sidewalk areas
>
> > Note that the last one claim may be controversial, some claim that
> mapping
>
> > sidewalk as highway=pedestrian area=yes in addition or instead to
>
> > highway=footway line is OK.
>
> > In some places such mapping is really popular.
>
>
>
> If this is indeed a popular way to tag wide sidewalks, then I’ll leave it
> as it. We should probably consider documenting this on the Wiki too if
> usage is high.
>
>
>
> Thanks all.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> *Sent:* 28 October 2021 10:46
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
> tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> *Cc:* Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] When does highway=footway become
> highway=pedestrian?
>
>
>
> For me it looks like a sidewalk, maybe a bit wider than usual. I would use
>
>
>
> highway=footway (with very optional area:highway=footway area)
>
>
>
> or
>
>
>
> use sidewalk tags on road, if that would be a local standard.
>
>
>
> highway=pedestrian
>
> or
>
> highway=pedestrian area=yes
>
>
>
> seems to be not fitting for this, in my opinion.
>
>
>
>
>
> Oct 27, 2021, 16:43 by nathancase at outlook.com:
>
> Thanks all for the comments so far.
>
>
>
> This is the Google maps Streetview link:
> https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4457248,-1.8176195,3a,75y,243.25h,90.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svoVWzs3jxPFNcpfhvpc4eg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
>
>
>
> Hopefully that works OK. Travel to the right to see more.
>
>
>
> Cheers.
>
>
>
> *From:* Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> *Sent:* 27 October 2021 12:07
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
> tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> *Cc:* Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] When does highway=footway become
> highway=pedestrian?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Oct 26, 2021, 16:00 by nathancase at outlook.com:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I’ve just posted this on the Wiki discussion page (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian#.22For_town_centres_and_civic_areas.22)
> but the thread is a little old and I know not everyone reads the Wiki
> anyway…
>
>
>
> I’m wondering at what point, if at all, a highway=footway becomes
> highway=pedestrian (i.e., a pedestrian area)?
>
> There are several things here
>
> - sidewalk tags (sidewalk as attribute of road)
>
> - highway=footway
>
> - highway=pedestrian for pedestrian road
>
> - area:highway=footway for area of footway/sidewalk (mapped as an extra)
>
> - highway=pedestrian area=yes for pedestrian squares
>
> - highway=pedestrian area=yes misused for footway/sidewalk areas
>
>
>
> Note that the last one claim may be controversial, some claim that mapping
>
> sidewalk as highway=pedestrian area=yes in addition or instead to
>
> highway=footway line is OK.
>
>
>
> In some places such mapping is really popular.
>
>
>
> I have an example (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/365487665#map=18/52.44601/-1.81904) of
> a sidewalk that has been mapped as a pedestrian area. It is certainly quite
> wide (around 7-8 m in places) and is located within a town centre/civic
> area. It even has painted markings (since COVID-19 pandemic began)
> splitting the direction of travel for pedestrians - though this is, of
> course, entirely ignored by everyone walking there.
>
>
>
> However, it is, fundamentally, just a wide paved area for pedestrians that
> runs parallel and adjacent to the main carriageway (road) – i.e. a sidewalk.
>
>
>
> Do we define particularly wide sidewalks as pedestrian areas? They do seem
> to match most of the criteria listed on the Wiki but it doesn’t seem to
> quite fit for me.
>
> Linking photos would be useful. In principle I can imagine place that can
> be treated
>
> as a dual carriageway, one of them mapped as highway=pedestrian line.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20211029/cf557f8b/attachment-0001.htm>