[Talk-dk] Tagging of No Pedestrian Crossings

Niels Elgaard Larsen elgaard at agol.dk
Ons Maj 6 10:51:26 UTC 2020

Theodore Ahlvin via Talk-dk:
> Hejso! The Apple team has recently been investigating pedestrian navigability in
> Denmark and we’ve come across some issues that would be best handled with consensus
> from the OSM Denmark community.
> Often streets intersect with dual carriageways where there are no crossings marked
> for pedestrians. For example, how Fyensgade intersects with Viborgvej at 56.4631795,
> 10.0156701 (way 30155258). 

Although it is mapped as such it is not a dual carriageway. It is just a 3-lane road.

> In this situation, and similar situations across the
> country, it could be dangerous or illegal for pedestrians to cross the dual
> carriageway. These crossings can also be all but impossible for individuals with
> disabilities using OSM to navigate. Our team has been adding ‘foot=no’ tags to these
> sections, but after a conversation with user MikkoLukas
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/76508518) we’ve decided to investigate a
> solution which the rest of the OSM Denmark community agrees on.
> There are several potential solutions to this problem. It could be argued that
> ‘foot=no’ could be inferred from Danish law on jay-walking and added to these
> sections. It could also be argued that ‘sidewalk=no’ or ‘sidewalk=none’ can be added
> to these sections, and would be accurate to ground truth, and used to discourage
> pedestrian crossings.

That is fine.

> Finally, it could also be argued that ‘crossing=no’ could be
> added to these sections, as it true to what is on the ground and the most accurate
> tag to describe why pedestrians should not be using these crossings.

But it is not in agreement with the wiki:

Where definitely no crossing is possible/legal.

Most of these places crossing is legal.
And also possible.

I checked some of the places next to where I live.

Here I would definitely cross if I was going to e.g. get Pad Thai at Silom (only
takeaway these days).
Mapillary shows a woman with a baby in a stroller crossing.

And a man with a briefcase

And a woman pushing her bicycle.

Now, Tagensvej is more busy.

That would depend on the traffic and the time of day.
If the traffic was very heavy, I might walk to crossing.

I often cross here.
And I do not see why https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/548963283 would be any safer
or better.

And consider Jagtvej/Drejøgade.

There is no crossing, zebras, etc. But notice on this Mapillary image that where
Drejøgade goes through the central reservation, there is actually two pieces of
standard Copenhagen sidewalk with paving stones and all. Clearly the city made that
for pedestrians crossing here.

Which illustrates that often dual carriageways are safer to cross than undivided
roads, because you are safe in the middle. And how would you tag that there is no
pedestrian crossing in an intersection between two undivided roads.


So in summary, you have marked a lot of the routes, that I normally walk, with foot=no.

> I think this information would be very valuable to include in OSM for both
> individuals with disabilities as well as for pedestrians. What solution to this issue
> would the OSM Denmark community prefer going forward?

We should just mark all crossings.
Then routers can decide, and users can make profiles.

When driving I can route for shortest distance, shortest time, etc.
And I can avoid gravel roads, motorways. Apple could make routers that prefers
crossings to following minor roads through dual carriageways. And users could decide
that they only want to use crossings, when crossing dual carriageways.

> Our team can go back and add
> whichever tags are decided on in place of the ‘foot=no’ tags previously added. Med
> venlig hilsen,
> -Theodore
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-dk mailing list
> Talk-dk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk

Niels Elgaard Larsen

Mere information om maillisten Talk-dk.