[Talk-GB] One-off separately mapped pavement, keep or delete?

[Andrew Hain]

I have had a chance to look at the road. There are indeed signs for the path on the north side; also, apart from short stretches at both ends, the pavements on both sides are only partly traversable with a grass verge next to the street interrupted by drives to every house.

--
Andrew
________________________________
From: Robert Skedgell <rob at hubris.org.uk>
Sent: 14 December 2022 23:43
To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] One-off separately mapped pavement, keep or delete?

I've replied to the note.

Describing any accessibility information associated with the separate
sidewalk/footway, may be a good enough reason for some to do it. I tend
to only do it with main roads which have well-defined crossing points.
Without mapped crossings, doing all the sidewalks on a residential
estate can lead to routing tools taking a rather scenic route.

There's a very good reason why parts of the London LOOP and Capital Ring
paths are mapped on separate footways. Small route markers and signs are
frequently present only on one side of the road and it can be quite easy
to miss a turning if you're on the wrong side. It's caught me out a few
times while running sections of the Capital Ring.

Hopefully the mapper who left the note has taken advantage of updates to
StreetComplete which make it easy to tag situations where one sidewalk
is mapped as a separate way and the other is not. I've added the
appropriate tags to the road in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130092647

On 14/12/2022 22:52, SK53 wrote:
> It appears to play a role in a relation
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10773339#map=16/51.6086/-0.3739>
> connected with the London Loop, and generally meets the criteria I'd
> want for a separately mapped footpath: footway=sidewalk, well-connected
> to roads and crossings. So it's not incorrect mapping, and it's one-off
> nature is to do with supporting a long-distance path, with some
> accessibility tagging. The pavement along Uxbridge Road is less well
> mapped and there are a couple of short stubs near the station, although
> short enough not to interfere with pedestrian routing.
>
> Whereas like you  I would generally chose to add sidewalk tags to the
> road, separate footway=sidewalk is a widely advocated style of mapping,
> and I think it is best to accept that.
>
> Jerry
>
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 at 21:36, Andrew Hain <andrewhainosm at hotmail.co.uk
> <mailto:andrewhainosm at hotmail.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>     I am considering whether or not to act on a note
>     [https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3176003
>     <https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3176003>] suggesting a one-off
>     separately mapped pavement (that is traversable to the road) should
>     be replaced with tags on the road. The road is in a suburb where
>     most roads have pavements on both sides.
>
>     I am trying to digest the forum discussion on the topic.
>     [https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/is-there-consensus-on-mapping-pavements-sidewalks-separately-to-roads/1067 <https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/is-there-consensus-on-mapping-pavements-sidewalks-separately-to-roads/1067>]
>
>     --
>     Andrew
>     <https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/is-there-consensus-on-mapping-pavements-sidewalks-separately-to-roads/1067>
>
>     Tagging help & support - OpenStreetMap Community
>     <https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/is-there-consensus-on-mapping-pavements-sidewalks-separately-to-roads/1067>
>     As of 2022, there is no consensus. A core reason for this situation
>     is that both commonly used approaches lack the ability to capture
>     some important knowledge about the world: Tags on the main highway=*
>     cannot faithfully represent sidewalk geometries (and struggle to
>     represent details such as barriers on sidewalks), while separate
>     ways fail to capture the information which road a sidewalk ...
>     community.openstreetmap.org <http://community.openstreetmap.org>
>
>
>     <https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3176003>
>
>     Note: 3176003 | OpenStreetMap
>     <https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3176003>
>     OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and
>     free to use under an open license.
>     www.openstreetmap.org<http://www.openstreetmap.org> <http://www.openstreetmap.org>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-GB mailing list
>     Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20221217/6f8136c8/attachment.htm>