[talk-au] Use of pedestrian streets to imply route hierarchy

[Richard Sota]

Hello all,

I'm a relatively new mapper (1.5 years) using iD, and am hoping to get 
some clarification on the use of pedestrian streets after some changes 
were made to my edits. In these changes, pedestrian streets have been 
used to imply a hierarchy in the footway network, in spite of their 
physical appearance on the ground. Is this okay?

Some background -

Lately I've been focusing on updating the pedestrian footpath network 
within Monash University Clayton, using Bing aerials and my own walks 
around the campus. On the ground, some roads and footpaths have been 
upgraded into high quality pedestrian routes, however this has led to a 
patchwork effect with some ped streets leading into ordinary roads or 
footpaths and vice-versa.

In my attempt to accurately reflect this patchwork in OSM, I've been 
guided by the definition of the "highway=pedestrian 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=pedestrian>" tag being:

"a road or an area mainly or exclusively for pedestrians in which some 
vehicle traffic may be authorized (e.g. emergency, taxi, delivery, ...)" 
and "where wide expanses of hard surface are provided for pedestrians to 
walk."

I also noted that "For narrow paths which are too small for cars to pass 
(not proper streets) use highway=footway 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=footway> instead." i.e. 
footpaths.

The example images for these tags have also informed my choices.


A few days ago another mapper (Bob42nd) created two changesets that 
converted some of the footpaths into pedestrian streets. This has 
'tidied' up the render somewhat but it is no longer an accurate 
representation of what's on the ground:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114013893 - "Reclasses some 
footways and unclassified to pedestrian."

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114014311 - "Pedestrian 
Highways, official "walks""

In the first changeset, I can see that converting the unclassified 
roadways into ped streets is somewhat justified as on the ground they 
are bollarded and only accessible by service vehicles. Although to 
pedestrians these still look like traditional roads with asphalt 
surfaces and concrete kerbs, in contrast to the 'true' ped streets with 
stone paving and no kerbs. This difference led me to retain the original 
'unclassified' street tags they had. See College Walk 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403774582#map=19/-37.91023/145.13578> 
as an example.

In the second changeset, the conversion to ped streets appears to be 
based on "official walks" (although the source for what makes an 
"official walk" hasn't been included). More so these ped streets don't 
reflect their appearance on the ground. For instance Chancellors Walk 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1004615769#map=19/-37.91209/145.13077> 
in reality is a narrow covered footpath that couldn't accommodate a 
vehicle, while the central portion of Rainforest Walk 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996587081#map=18/-37.91134/145.13151> 
is comprised of a concrete footpath that doesn't look or feel like a 
wide 'street' on the ground.

So repeating the question, can pedestrian streets be used to imply a 
perceived hierarchy in the footway network, in spite of their physical 
appearance on the ground? Can it be justified for the purpose of 
improving route-finding on the ground? Thanks for any discussion.

And apologies for the lengthy post!

Thanks,
Richard




>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20211121/e6e58826/attachment.htm>