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

[Andy Townsend]

On 24/12/2022 21:45, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> 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
>
>
Searching for highway=pedestrian there gives e.g. 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1poi .

I think that's a mistagging.  I'd suggest that 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1037350081 was not a 
highway=pedestrian at all, but actually area:highway=footway.

Imagery is limited, but it looks to me like it'd be perfectly possible 
to get from https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9360288327 to 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9556145165  by stepping over a kerb.

With regard to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1014562278 , 
Personally, I'd tend not to map "ordinary roadside sidewalks" like that, 
but some people do and it's perfectly acceptable, provided that all the 
joining parts are there (which as you mention, they're not yet).

Looking at changeset discussions 
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=13750939 , 
it does look like they reply at least sometimes, so I'd probably start 
there.

Best Regards,

Andy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20221224/416a26c8/attachment.htm>