[Talk-GB] Pavements (footways/sidewalks) mapped as pedestrian areas AND footways

[Edward Catmur]

Seems fine to me. Routers are going to have to handle this style for town
and city centres, so why shouldn't it be used in residential areas?

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 at 22:02, Jon Pennycook via Talk-GB <
talk-gb at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> (resending because my original message didn't seem to go through)
>
> Hello.
>
> In the Elsea Park area of Bourne in Lincolnshire, I can see pavements
> (footways/sidewalks) mapped twice - once as highway=footway and again as
> highway=pedestrian, and these (the ways on the map) are not reliably linked
> to mapped roads in a useful way.  These are simple ordinary pavements (i.e.
> separated from the road only by kerbs and with crossings in obvious
> places).  I think the overlay of the pedestrian areas is overkill - what do
> other people think?  I can see the possibility for router confusion (e.g.
> if a router tries to start a journey on the pedestrian area rather than the
> footway).
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.75863/-0.38357
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=244949387389449
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1037350139
>
> I left some notes through StreetComplete suggesting the double-mapping was
> unnecessary, but they were closed by the original mapper.
>
> I can now see these extend beyond Elsea Park, e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.76642/-0.37521
>
> Other than using StreetComplete, Lincolnshire isn't a focus area for me at
> the moment (I'm trying to get through my backlog of traces and notes for
> Purbeck and the Isle of Wight, and then housing estates near where I live).
>
> Jon
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20221224/02800e23/attachment.htm>