[Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes
sk53.osm at gmail.com
Mon Dec 5 17:03:58 UTC 2016
I concur with "keep it in" and help provide information for routers to
identify potential warnings.
There are many similar issues for pedestrians which certainly should be
mapped. For instance there are still many very hazardous unsigned
pedestrian crossing points on dual carriageways (typically where a
pre-existing right of way was bisected by the road). I noted several along
the A45 from Northampton to Brackley last Saturday, and am still eternally
grateful for the re-routing of a path which used to cross the A404 near
Bisham. I was foolhardy to cross this once before the new route was opened.
Another similar pedestrian safety issue are busy roads without verges or
sidewalks. At least in the latter case the solution is adding sidewalk
and/or verge tags which allows routers & renderers to avoid or highlight
these less desirable possibilities.
It seems rational to approach cycle routing issues in a similar manner.
On 5 December 2016 at 16:31, Dave F <davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com> wrote:
> It needs to remain. As it's clearly signed as a shared use path it's has
> authoritative standing.
> 'Dangerous' is purely subjective. Many people do 'dangerous' things such
> as drive too fast, take drugs or jump out of aeroplanes. OSM is not the
> place to quantify. Adding a 'falling rocks' sign to OSM is fine. Telling
> someone they can't go there because of those rocks is wrong. Your user has
> decided, based on experience, that he doesn't want to use it, which is
> fine, but he shouldn't dictate that others can't.
> What would benefit OSM is if the path was detailed more accurately.
> Are you Traveline?
> Dave F.
> On 05/12/2016 16:12, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
> At Stirling Corner, on the A1 in Barnet, there is a cycle way (hence also
> available for pedestrians) that goes around the outside of the roundabout (
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78315291). A cursory glance at satellite
> mapping shows it to be well defined, and marked. But it will also highlight
> that where you cross the southbound A1 to the south of the roundabout (and
> likewise the northbound A1 to the north) it is highly dangerous. You have
> to cross three lanes of traffic, and there is always a flow of some sort,
> either from the A1 or from the side roads.
> What is the right course of action here - leave it in, because it reflects
> what is on the ground, or take it out on safety grounds. This isn’t an idle
> question - a user of my website has stated that it is dangerous to use, and
> has asked me to remove it. My conclusion was to leave it in, but as it cuts
> to what it is that is being produced here - an accurate cartographic
> representation of the world, regardless, or something a little different -
> I thought I would ask for views.
> Talk-GB mailing listTalk-GB at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> [image: Avast logo]
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB