[Talk-GB] New Mapper freestyling

[Robert Skedgell]

The ones I tend to map fall into three categories:

1) Main roads with limited crossing points (in most cases you can still
legally cross anywhere you like unless there's a physical barrier, but
that's not much use for practical routing).

2) Waymarked walking routes where it matters which side of the street
you're on. The Capital Ring frequently only has markers on one side of
the street, which are easy to miss if you're on the other and there's a
lot of traffic.

3) New builds with good imagery available and frequent marked unmarked
crossings (usually with tactile paving and dropped kerbs or speed
tables), like Chobham Manor E20.

I tend to map them because they're useful to may when I plan a running
or walking route to upload to my watch, but I also make sure I capture
as many accessibility-related features as possible. Once I've mapped
what I can from Bing aerial imagery and Mapillary, I'll try to walk the
ways I've added with StreetComplete a few days later to fill in some of
the missing data.

The ones in the changeset referred to by the OP aren't much use for
routing as they don't (yet?) connect to streets at crossing nodes.
Rather than removing the "clutter", encouraging the mapper to join
things up and add tags like tactile_paving=* might be more useful.

On 21/10/2021 08:02, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Mapping sidewalks can be very useful - if done correctly. By
> correctly, I specifically mean that
> - the sidewalks have to be routable (join to roads at suitable points)
> - they should be marked with footway=sidewalk
> - all associated road crossings need to be present and marked with
> footway=crossing
> 
> My personal rule of thumb is based objectively on highway type and
> subjectively on volume of traffic. IMO, all dual carriageways should
> have separate sidewalks, as the routes that pedestrians are supposed
> to take at junctions are often complex. Town centres also often
> benefit from separate sidewalks.
> In general, I have tried to add sidewalks to primary roads. For other
> street types I think use of sidewalk=both is generally sufficient.
> 
> Here is an example around the A3 where drawing separate sidewalks is essential
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.40365/-0.23792
> 
> Where an artificial link needs to be added to join a sidewalk to the
> regular highway, I like to add footway=link even though it isn't yet
> officially supported.
> 
> Sidewalks often work well with proper representation of traffic lights
> (separating the lights from the crossing) and adding traffic islands,
> 
> In summary, the changeset is fine, but incomplete (as it doesn't route
> properly or include crossings)
> 
> Stephen
> 
> 
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 at 01:38, Steven Hirschorn
> <steven.hirschorn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> A quick check again, a new mapper has been adding pavements in West London. I think they feel they are improving the map, but it feels like it's deviating from common practice and adding clutter to the map. What do you think?
>>
>> This is the user:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/corbanwolf
>>
>> And an example changeset:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/112630151
>>
>> Time to intervene with an email? I'm trying to think of a time when it would be appropriate to map pavements separately? I'm thinking the main times I've seen it is where the pedestrian bit is separated from the road by some distance, but even then it's arguable.
>>
>> Steven
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>