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

[Richard Sota]

Thanks for the replies. It confirms that my original approach was 
correct and that the other mapper's changes were a bit misguided.

I guess I need to get in touch with him to change things back.

Richard


------ Original Message ------
From: "Andrew Harvey" <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
To: "Richard Sota" <richard at sota.id.au>
Cc: "OSM Australian Talk List" <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: 21/11/2021 6:40:19 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Use of pedestrian streets to imply route 
hierarchy

>Based on the wiki I understand highway=pedestrian to be for roads that 
>pedestrians freely walk on and some vehicles can drive on, but mostly 
>vehicles don't drive on them because there are too many pedestrians or 
>restrictions limit vehicle access.
>
>It's a common misstagging to use it as a more important 
>highway=footway.
>
>highway=pedestrian + area=yes is almost a completely different tag 
>which is used on plazas, malls, squares or other open pedestrian 
>surfaces. This is what the wiki is referring to by the "wide expanses 
>of hard surfaces".
>
>To some extent width and name can be indicators of how major a footway 
>is.
>
>On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 at 13:51, Richard Sota <richard at sota.id.au> wrote:
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Talk-au mailing list
>>Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20211121/8ab4e2ff/attachment.htm>