[Talk-GB] help with reverting changeset (all cycleways in a particular area deleted)

[Stephen Colebourne]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 00:48, Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com> wrote:
> https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/is-there-consensus-on-mapping-pavements-sidewalks-separately-to-roads/1067/10
> (the short answer there is basically "no, there is no censensus").

I'd say there is more support for separate sidewalks than opposition.
They are pretty common now, and the only way to map pedestrian routing
in many places. The main issue seems to be the lack of an associated
name or link between the sidewalk and road, although I'm personally
not sure how much it matters. It looks like `is_sidepath:of:name` has
some traction.

My specific comment on that thread is this one:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/is-there-consensus-on-mapping-pavements-sidewalks-separately-to-roads/1067/19

I regularly use footway=sidewalk, footway=crossing and footway=link
which all make perfect sense, and should be required tags when mapping
the sidewalk system.

> *2 leaving aside the all-too-common case of a local authority pretending
> to provide cycle infrastructure by declaring existing narrow sidewalks
> as "cycleways", saving cyclists from marauding cars but leaving
> pedestrians at the mercy of cyclists.

This is the one that most perturbs me. I would prefer to mark this as
`highway=footway` with `bicycle=designated` rather than
`highway=cycleway`. This does seem like an area of potential conflict
between cycle-mappers and pedestrian-mappers. (My view is that it
isn't really a cycleway, as a cycleway should be something built for
cycling and of a higher quality than "just" a sidewalk)

I would also prefer OSM derived maps to use red/blue dashed lines
where a route is explicitly tagged such that it can be used by both
pedestrians and cyclists

thanks
Stephen