[Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

Colin Smale colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Mon Dec 5 17:19:00 UTC 2016


This reminds me of "unsuitable for HGVs" which IIRC has been the subject
of debate in the past. One approach would be "hgv=unsuitable" meaning
"legally yes but not advised". That seems to be exactly what we need
here. Perhaps we could have "foot=unsuitable" for this path?

//colin 

On 2016-12-05 18:03, SK53 wrote:

> 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.
> 
> Jerry 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Cheers
> Dave F.
> 
> On 05/12/2016 16:12, Stuart Reynolds wrote: Greetings 
> 
> 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 [2]). 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. 
> 
> Regards, 
> Stuart 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [1]
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> [3]
> 
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com [3] 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [1]

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 

Links:
------
[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78315291
[3]
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20161205/9536a973/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: blocked.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 118 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20161205/9536a973/attachment-0001.gif>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list