[Talk-GB] Legally permitted vs inadvisable

[SK53]

Inadvisable is probably too dependent on the individual and their
particular situation.

As ever it is better to try adding something more objective to the data
which allows these routing situations to be better handled. The current
tags which allow this are sidewalk & verge. I think a sensible solution for
your generic case would be to disallow pedestrian routing along A-roads
which have sidewalk=none (perhaps when maxspeed > 30 mph). Verges will not
be practicable for many pedestrians (Mums with pushchairs, toddlers, older
people etc) so I think can be ignored.

This would still allow routing where no-one has surveyed or tagged sidewalk
provision, and is therefore less likely to break places where there are
pavements or paths. It also allows those cases where walking along the road
is inadvisable to be mapped on a case-by-case basis.

Other refinements might include considering whether a road is urban or
rural (Richard Fairhurst does this on cycle.travel): OS Open Data provides
a decent data set of this & the one I generate from OSM is very similar.

On a broader community level: mapping presence of absence of pavements or
other paths alongside main roads in the countryside (and when absent
features of the verge) is probably something we should aim to do alongside
completing speed limits for trunk roads. Much can be done from Mapillary
images.

Jerry



On 8 March 2017 at 11:27, Stuart Reynolds <stuart at travelinesoutheast.org.uk>
wrote:

> What’s the thinking about tagging foot=no along busy dual carriageways?
> Specifically I would like to remove a walk from a stretch of the A2 near
> Barham in Kent where there are bus stops, but no footways along the verge
> (and indeed very little in the way of verge at some points). It is
> technically legal to walk along the A2 from the junction to the south, but
> it is most certainly not advisable and you would be taking your life into
> your hands if you did so.
>
> BTW, access to the northbound bus stop is via a footpath through the
> woods. Technically the southbound one is accessed via a footpath across a
> break in the crash barriers - but we don’t have that on OSM, and I’m not
> about to add it in.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/26237116#map=18/51.21188/1.16626
>
> Regards,
> Stuart Reynolds
> for traveline south east & anglia
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20170308/84e2b8ba/attachment.html>