[Talk-GB] Legally permitted vs inadvisable

[Dan S]

Sounds like a quarterly project?

2017-03-09 6:05 GMT+00:00 Dudley Ibbett <dudleyibbett at hotmail.com>:

> If I’m planning a walk for myself or leading a group in a rural area such
> as the Peak District I would always assume for an A or B road sidewalk=none
> as the default.   Because of a lack of detail on most maps for sidewalks
> and verges most people out walking in rural areas are likely to plan routes
> avoiding such roads.  I must admit I don’t know what the legal status is
> when it comes to walking along a verge.  If enough people walk along a
> verge could/should it become sidewalk=*, surface=grass/ground/mud/...?  If
> there was a particular need to use a section of an A or B road I would
> currently have to go out and survey it or take a look at any suitable
> images online.
>
>
>
> As a consequence of the above and my involvement in OSM I do now try and
> put in sidewalks as there is the potential to produce a much better map for
> walkers in rural areas using OSM.  Sidewalks are certainly a feature I
> would like to add to the maps I put on my Garmin GPS.  I’m not aware of
> any online map that displays sidewalks.  It would certainly be useful if
> there was one.
>
>
>
> I suspect routing for walking may need to be different when it comes to
> rural and urban areas.  The latter tends to be about getting from A to B.
> In rural areas routing is most likely to be about a limited distance
> starting and finishing at A and taking in specific features.
>
>
>
> I would certainly encourage people to map sidewalks in rural areas as
> there seem to be no rules as to where they are likely to be found and they
> are a very useful map feature for walkers.
>
> Dudley
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Philip Barnes <phil at trigpoint.me.uk>
> *Sent:* 08 March 2017 12:49
> *To:* talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Legally permitted vs inadvisable
>
> On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 11:41 +0000, SK53 wrote:
>
> Inadvisable is probably too dependent on the individual and their
> particular situation.
>
> Absolutely, doing this could make many PROW inaccessible.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
>
>
> 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.
> cycle.travel | Commuting, Bike Maps, Cycle Routes, Touring
> <http://cycle.travel/>
> cycle.travel
> Smart Turns – new on cycle.travel's route-planner. New Saturday 23 April
> · 6. Today cycle.travel’s route-planner gets the biggest single
> improvement since it ...
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing listTalk-GB at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170309/07a064fe/attachment.html>