Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

[Cartographer10 via Tagging]

Based on the feedback I have received I made some changes to theproposal:


1) I added a smallchange in the proposal template to add notes as reminder that 
useradds the links of discussion on the forum and ML to the proposal.


2) I removed thewords “new forum” and replaced it with community forum since 
theforum has been in use for some time already.


3) I added that it is always the proposal author’s responsibility to make 
sureannouncements get cross posted if needed. The author needs to checkthe 
forum or the ML archive to see if the announcement has been crossposted.


4) On the forum,there is a sub community for tagging discussion. 
Proposalannouncements can be made there. People can follow the 
tag“wiki-proposal” to subscribe to new topics if they don’t wantto follow the 
entire sub community. If the traffic increases, aspecial sub community for 
proposals can be requested (if enoughmoderators can be found).





I hope that withthis I addressed everybody their concerns regarding this change.





Proposal link: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Announce_proposals_on_the_community_forum


Vincent



13 nov. 2022 16:01 van tagging_at_openstreetmap_org_seblajk...@simplelogin.co:

> I didn't receive any feedback on my updated proposal. If you have any, please 
> share it here. I hope that the current proposal will for everybody.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Vincent
>
>
>
> 6 nov. 2022 09:03 van tagging_at_openstreetmap_org_seblajk...@simplelogin.co:
>
>> I have updated the proposal a few days back which I would like to receive 
>> feedback on.
>>
>> I removed the transition period and required both the forum and the ML to be 
>> notified of a new proposal or vote. One exception I propose is that the 
>> proposal should be allowed to be made on behalf of the proposal author on 
>> either the ML or the forum. 
>>
>> I hope that this change will satisfy both sides
>>
>> Vincent
>>
>>
>> 29 okt. 2022 09:34 van 
>> tagging_at_openstreetmap_org_seblajk...@simplelogin.co:
>>
>>> Hello everybody,
>>>
>>> Based on the feedback, I updated the proposal to start using the new forum 
>>> for proposal announcements. 
>>>
>>> Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page.
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Start_moving_proposal_announcements_to_the_new_forum>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Vincent
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] uphill vs. incline=up - direction of travel

[Patrick Strasser-Mikhail]

Hello!

I have need for tagging that a restriction on a road is only valid in 
case a vehicle is driving uphill.


The traffic sign states "Snow chains required when ice or snow on road, 
except for AWD cars driving uphill"[1]. This is indicated on both sides 
of the road section, both driving uphill and downhill.


That would call for a conditional [2] specification of a direction or 
condition with the aspect of direction in relation to elevation.


The first idea was to use 'incline=up' like in
  snow_chains=required @ (ice; snow)
  snow_chains:motorcar:conditional=default @ (awd AND incline=up)

It was pointed out[3] that 'incline' is a tag and intended to indicate a 
*direction* and amount of inclination of *the road in relation to the 
mapping direction*, not the direction of the *vehicle driving* on the road.

**'uphill'** was proposed.

There is however a accepted specification for relative direction 
longitudial-wise in relation to the way: Forward, backward, left, right 
[4][5][note 1].

These are defined to be used as key suffix or value.

The improvement seems to be to instead use 'uphill' either
as direction as key suffix
  snow_chains=required @ (ice; snow)
  snow_chains:motorcar:uphill:conditional=default @ awd

or as condition
  snow_chains=required @ (ice; snow)
  snow_chains:motorcar:conditional=default @ (awd AND uphill)

The direction key suffix approach seems to integrate better, but mappers 
could mistake it and use it instead of :forward and :backward, making it 
impossible to interpret without inlination information. Using it in the 
condition seems to split direction information from other direction 
information.


What do you think?

Best Regards

Patrick/trapicki


[1] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Snow_chains&oldid=2451441#Examples

[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
[3] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Snow_chains#uphill_vs._incline

[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forward_%26_backward,_left_%26_right
[5] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/right_left

[note 1] I could not find an accepted proposal for that, bit was 
implicated in the the proposal for conditional restrictions that it was 
accepted at that time of the :left and :right proposal in 2009 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=813491#What_about_:forward_and_:backward?

--
engineers motto: cheap, fast, good - choose any two
Increase the Awesome, reduce the WTF!

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] uphill vs. incline=up - direction of travel

[Patrick Strasser-Mikhail]

Am 18.12.22 um 20:19 schrieb Patrick Strasser-Mikhail:


**'uphill'** was proposed.

Forgot:
This is already in use by mtb:scale:uphill[6] specifically and could be 
adopted.


[6]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale#mtb:scale:uphill=0-5

Patrick

--
engineers motto: cheap, fast, good - choose any two
Increase the Awesome, reduce the WTF!

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

Hello,

I am the author of a data consumer which generates a list of streets that
are accessible to walkers and joggers. The idea is that a user would have a
map of the streets in their town and can challenge themselves to walk/jog
down every street, and they can look at statistics on which streets they've
completed.  I use a 25-meter rule, so if a user can walk along the
shoulder, or on a sidewalk/pavement, or in the verge, that's acceptable.

I recently came across an unexpected tagging combination and I would like
to understand how folks in various places would interpret this:

highway=
foot=no
sidewalk=separate

In my software's logic, I've made the assumption that foot=* applies to
"the whole of the road" including the roadway, shoulders, verge, sidewalks,
and so forth and thus excluded any roads that include that tag, regardless
of other tagging. I came to understand that this tagging was used by a
mapper to indicate that "pedestrians are not allowed on the roadway,
however, they are allowed on the sidewalk"

Would folks regard that as accurate data modeling?  I.e. should I change my
software to treat streets tagged in this way as pedestrian-accessible, or
would folks regard this combination as a tagging error?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[cyton_osm]

 
 If and only if there is a separately mapped sidewalk.Sidewalk=separate means there needs to be such a way.However i would tag foot=use_sidepath, which means the same as foot=no but also indicates the existence of a separate way usable for routing.And only if the highway is a streets centerline, not a cycleway or other.CytonAm 18.12.22, 21:32 schrieb "Brian M. Sperlongano" :

  
   Hello,
   
   

   
   
I am the author of a data consumer which generates a list of streets that are accessible to walkers and joggers. The idea is that a user would have a map of the streets in their town and can challenge themselves to walk/jog down every street, and they can look at statistics on which streets they've completed.  I use a 25-meter rule, so if a user can walk along the shoulder, or on a sidewalk/pavement, or in the verge, that's acceptable.
   
   

   
   
I recently came across an unexpected tagging combination and I would like to understand how folks in various places would interpret this:
   
   

   
   
highway=
   
   
foot=no
   
   
sidewalk=separate
   
   

   
   
In my software's logic, I've made the assumption that foot=* applies to "the whole of the road" including the roadway, shoulders, verge, sidewalks, and so forth and thus excluded any roads that include that tag, regardless of other tagging. I came to understand that this tagging was used by a mapper to indicate that "pedestrians are not allowed on the roadway, however, they are allowed on the sidewalk"
   
   

   
   
Would folks regard that as accurate data modeling?  I.e. should I change my software to treat streets tagged in this way as pedestrian-accessible, or would folks regard this combination as a tagging error?
   
   

   
   

   
   ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

Thanks Cyton.

Just to be clear, I'm only talking about automobile roads -
highway=trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified/residential.

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 3:41 PM  wrote:

> If and only if there is a separately mapped sidewalk.
> Sidewalk=separate means there needs to be such a way.
> However i would tag foot=use_sidepath, which means the same as foot=no but
> also indicates the existence of a separate way usable for routing.
> And only if the highway is a streets centerline, not a cycleway or other.
>
> Cyton
> Am 18.12.22, 21:32 schrieb "Brian M. Sperlongano" :
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am the author of a data consumer which generates a list of streets that
>> are accessible to walkers and joggers. The idea is that a user would have a
>> map of the streets in their town and can challenge themselves to walk/jog
>> down every street, and they can look at statistics on which streets they've
>> completed.  I use a 25-meter rule, so if a user can walk along the
>> shoulder, or on a sidewalk/pavement, or in the verge, that's acceptable.
>>
>> I recently came across an unexpected tagging combination and I would like
>> to understand how folks in various places would interpret this:
>>
>> highway=
>> foot=no
>> sidewalk=separate
>>
>> In my software's logic, I've made the assumption that foot=* applies to
>> "the whole of the road" including the roadway, shoulders, verge, sidewalks,
>> and so forth and thus excluded any roads that include that tag, regardless
>> of other tagging. I came to understand that this tagging was used by a
>> mapper to indicate that "pedestrians are not allowed on the roadway,
>> however, they are allowed on the sidewalk"
>>
>> Would folks regard that as accurate data modeling?  I.e. should I change
>> my software to treat streets tagged in this way as pedestrian-accessible,
>> or would folks regard this combination as a tagging error?
>>
>>
>> ___ Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Re: Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[cyton_osm]

 
 Yes, only if the local legislation infers that pedestrians have to use a (usually car) road-accompanying sidewalk.Also, your project reminds me of wandrer.earth, where craig also introduced a way for running to track ran ways, not only for cyclists. Though i only  use it for cycling.--Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android Mobiltelefon mit WEB.DE Mail gesendet.Am 18.12.22, 21:47 schrieb "Brian M. Sperlongano" :

  
   Thanks Cyton.
   
   

   
   
Just to be clear, I'm only talking about automobile roads - highway=trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified/residential.
   
  
  
  
   
On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 3:41 PM  wrote:

   
   

 
  If and only if there is a separately mapped sidewalk.
  Sidewalk=separate means there needs to be such a way.
  However i would tag foot=use_sidepath, which means the same as foot=no but also indicates the existence of a separate way usable for routing.
  And only if the highway is a streets centerline, not a cycleway or other.
  
  Cyton
 
 
  
   Am 18.12.22, 21:32 schrieb "Brian M. Sperlongano" :
  
  
   
 Hello,


 


  I am the author of a data consumer which generates a list of streets that are accessible to walkers and joggers. The idea is that a user would have a map of the streets in their town and can challenge themselves to walk/jog down every street, and they can look at statistics on which streets they've completed.  I use a 25-meter rule, so if a user can walk along the shoulder, or on a sidewalk/pavement, or in the verge, that's acceptable.


 


  I recently came across an unexpected tagging combination and I would like to understand how folks in various places would interpret this:


 


  highway=


  foot=no


  sidewalk=separate


 


  In my software's logic, I've made the assumption that foot=* applies to "the whole of the road" including the roadway, shoulders, verge, sidewalks, and so forth and thus excluded any roads that include that tag, regardless of other tagging. I came to understand that this tagging was used by a mapper to indicate that "pedestrians are not allowed on the roadway, however, they are allowed on the sidewalk"


 


  Would folks regard that as accurate data modeling?  I.e. should I change my software to treat streets tagged in this way as pedestrian-accessible, or would folks regard this combination as a tagging error?


 


 

___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
  
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

   
   ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Ivo Reano]

I don't know in your area if all pedestrians who use the streets just
because they don't have a car are punished.
In Italy, only motorways and some major traffic routes are formally
"forbidden" to pedestrian transit.
If I found a foot=yes on a street, simply to indicate that one should not
walk in the middle of the street, I would delete that tag (and send a
message to the user asking what he meant).
It seems obvious to me that if I walk on a road I keep to the left (excuse
non-Anglo-Saxons, but this is the preferred direction for pedestrians on
driveways in the rest of the world).
While if I'm on a road with no traffic (not flat) I mostly walk on the
downhill side.
In short: if there isn't a sidewalk, and the street isn't reserved for
vehicles (but where do you live?) foot=no it seems absurd to me, or rather
wrong.

Ivo, Jrachi

Il giorno dom 18 dic 2022 alle ore 22:05  ha scritto:

> Yes, only if the local legislation infers that pedestrians have to use a
> (usually car) road-accompanying sidewalk.
>
> Also, your project reminds me of wandrer.earth, where craig also
> introduced a way for running to track ran ways, not only for cyclists.
> Though i only use it for cycling.
>
> --
> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android Mobiltelefon mit WEB.DE Mail
> gesendet.
> Am 18.12.22, 21:47 schrieb "Brian M. Sperlongano" :
>
>> Thanks Cyton.
>>
>> Just to be clear, I'm only talking about automobile roads -
>> highway=trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified/residential.
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 3:41 PM  wrote:
>>
>>> If and only if there is a separately mapped sidewalk.
>>> Sidewalk=separate means there needs to be such a way.
>>> However i would tag foot=use_sidepath, which means the same as foot=no
>>> but also indicates the existence of a separate way usable for routing.
>>> And only if the highway is a streets centerline, not a cycleway or
>>> other.
>>>
>>> Cyton
>>> Am 18.12.22, 21:32 schrieb "Brian M. Sperlongano" :
>>>
>>>
 Hello,

 I am the author of a data consumer which generates a list of streets
 that are accessible to walkers and joggers. The idea is that a user would
 have a map of the streets in their town and can challenge themselves to
 walk/jog down every street, and they can look at statistics on which
 streets they've completed.  I use a 25-meter rule, so if a user can walk
 along the shoulder, or on a sidewalk/pavement, or in the verge, that's
 acceptable.

 I recently came across an unexpected tagging combination and I would
 like to understand how folks in various places would interpret this:

 highway=
 foot=no
 sidewalk=separate

 In my software's logic, I've made the assumption that foot=* applies to
 "the whole of the road" including the roadway, shoulders, verge, sidewalks,
 and so forth and thus excluded any roads that include that tag, regardless
 of other tagging. I came to understand that this tagging was used by a
 mapper to indicate that "pedestrians are not allowed on the roadway,
 however, they are allowed on the sidewalk"

 Would folks regard that as accurate data modeling?  I.e. should I
 change my software to treat streets tagged in this way as
 pedestrian-accessible, or would folks regard this combination as a tagging
 error?


 ___ Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> ___ Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

Hi,

The tagging that I cited was from Texas in the USA.  In that location, it
is illegal to walk in the roadway (where the cars go), but there was a
separate sidewalk where pedestrians are supposed to walk.  However, my
software works globally so I'm trying to understand how that
`sidewalk=separate` + `foot=no` combination should be interpreted on a
global basis, or if I should just ignore those combinations as a tagging
error.

So the situation is:
1. There is a sidewalk, and it's mapped separately
2. The road is tagged sidewalk=separate + foot=no
3. It's illegal to walk in the road itself because there is a sidewalk
(state law in that area)

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 4:22 PM Ivo Reano  wrote:

> I don't know in your area if all pedestrians who use the streets just
> because they don't have a car are punished.
> In Italy, only motorways and some major traffic routes are formally
> "forbidden" to pedestrian transit.
> If I found a foot=yes on a street, simply to indicate that one should not
> walk in the middle of the street, I would delete that tag (and send a
> message to the user asking what he meant).
> It seems obvious to me that if I walk on a road I keep to the left (excuse
> non-Anglo-Saxons, but this is the preferred direction for pedestrians on
> driveways in the rest of the world).
> While if I'm on a road with no traffic (not flat) I mostly walk on the
> downhill side.
> In short: if there isn't a sidewalk, and the street isn't reserved for
> vehicles (but where do you live?) foot=no it seems absurd to me, or rather
> wrong.
>
> Ivo, Jrachi
>
> Il giorno dom 18 dic 2022 alle ore 22:05  ha scritto:
>
>> Yes, only if the local legislation infers that pedestrians have to use a
>> (usually car) road-accompanying sidewalk.
>>
>> Also, your project reminds me of wandrer.earth, where craig also
>> introduced a way for running to track ran ways, not only for cyclists.
>> Though i only use it for cycling.
>>
>> --
>> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android Mobiltelefon mit WEB.DE Mail
>> gesendet.
>> Am 18.12.22, 21:47 schrieb "Brian M. Sperlongano" :
>>
>>> Thanks Cyton.
>>>
>>> Just to be clear, I'm only talking about automobile roads -
>>> highway=trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified/residential.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 3:41 PM  wrote:
>>>
 If and only if there is a separately mapped sidewalk.
 Sidewalk=separate means there needs to be such a way.
 However i would tag foot=use_sidepath, which means the same as foot=no
 but also indicates the existence of a separate way usable for routing.
 And only if the highway is a streets centerline, not a cycleway or
 other.

 Cyton
 Am 18.12.22, 21:32 schrieb "Brian M. Sperlongano" :


> Hello,
>
> I am the author of a data consumer which generates a list of streets
> that are accessible to walkers and joggers. The idea is that a user would
> have a map of the streets in their town and can challenge themselves to
> walk/jog down every street, and they can look at statistics on which
> streets they've completed.  I use a 25-meter rule, so if a user can walk
> along the shoulder, or on a sidewalk/pavement, or in the verge, that's
> acceptable.
>
> I recently came across an unexpected tagging combination and I would
> like to understand how folks in various places would interpret this:
>
> highway=
> foot=no
> sidewalk=separate
>
> In my software's logic, I've made the assumption that foot=* applies
> to "the whole of the road" including the roadway, shoulders, verge,
> sidewalks, and so forth and thus excluded any roads that include that tag,
> regardless of other tagging. I came to understand that this tagging was
> used by a mapper to indicate that "pedestrians are not allowed on the
> roadway, however, they are allowed on the sidewalk"
>
> Would folks regard that as accurate data modeling?  I.e. should I
> change my software to treat streets tagged in this way as
> pedestrian-accessible, or would folks regard this combination as a tagging
> error?
>
>
> ___ Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

>>> ___ Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Jens Glad Balchen]

On 18.12.2022 21:38, cyton_...@web.de wrote:

And only if the highway is a streets centerline, not a cycleway or other.


Why differentiate?

Jens___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Ivo Reano]

Are you saying that in Texas you can't walk on a street that doesn't have a
sidewalk?
Only in a city environment or also in a non-city environment?
Or in Texas if you're on foot you're going nowhere?
Definitely not human!


Il giorno dom 18 dic 2022 alle ore 22:31 Brian M. Sperlongano <
zelonew...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Hi,
>
> The tagging that I cited was from Texas in the USA.  In that location, it
> is illegal to walk in the roadway (where the cars go), but there was a
> separate sidewalk where pedestrians are supposed to walk.  However, my
> software works globally so I'm trying to understand how that
> `sidewalk=separate` + `foot=no` combination should be interpreted on a
> global basis, or if I should just ignore those combinations as a tagging
> error.
>
> So the situation is:
> 1. There is a sidewalk, and it's mapped separately
> 2. The road is tagged sidewalk=separate + foot=no
> 3. It's illegal to walk in the road itself because there is a sidewalk
> (state law in that area)
>
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 4:22 PM Ivo Reano  wrote:
>
>> I don't know in your area if all pedestrians who use the streets just
>> because they don't have a car are punished.
>> In Italy, only motorways and some major traffic routes are formally
>> "forbidden" to pedestrian transit.
>> If I found a foot=yes on a street, simply to indicate that one should not
>> walk in the middle of the street, I would delete that tag (and send a
>> message to the user asking what he meant).
>> It seems obvious to me that if I walk on a road I keep to the left
>> (excuse non-Anglo-Saxons, but this is the preferred direction for
>> pedestrians on driveways in the rest of the world).
>> While if I'm on a road with no traffic (not flat) I mostly walk on the
>> downhill side.
>> In short: if there isn't a sidewalk, and the street isn't reserved for
>> vehicles (but where do you live?) foot=no it seems absurd to me, or rather
>> wrong.
>>
>> Ivo, Jrachi
>>
>> Il giorno dom 18 dic 2022 alle ore 22:05  ha scritto:
>>
>>> Yes, only if the local legislation infers that pedestrians have to use a
>>> (usually car) road-accompanying sidewalk.
>>>
>>> Also, your project reminds me of wandrer.earth, where craig also
>>> introduced a way for running to track ran ways, not only for cyclists.
>>> Though i only use it for cycling.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android Mobiltelefon mit WEB.DE Mail
>>> gesendet.
>>> Am 18.12.22, 21:47 schrieb "Brian M. Sperlongano" >> >:
>>>
 Thanks Cyton.

 Just to be clear, I'm only talking about automobile roads -
 highway=trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified/residential.

 On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 3:41 PM  wrote:

> If and only if there is a separately mapped sidewalk.
> Sidewalk=separate means there needs to be such a way.
> However i would tag foot=use_sidepath, which means the same as foot=no
> but also indicates the existence of a separate way usable for routing.
> And only if the highway is a streets centerline, not a cycleway or
> other.
>
> Cyton
> Am 18.12.22, 21:32 schrieb "Brian M. Sperlongano" <
> zelonew...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am the author of a data consumer which generates a list of streets
>> that are accessible to walkers and joggers. The idea is that a user would
>> have a map of the streets in their town and can challenge themselves to
>> walk/jog down every street, and they can look at statistics on which
>> streets they've completed.  I use a 25-meter rule, so if a user can walk
>> along the shoulder, or on a sidewalk/pavement, or in the verge, that's
>> acceptable.
>>
>> I recently came across an unexpected tagging combination and I would
>> like to understand how folks in various places would interpret this:
>>
>> highway=
>> foot=no
>> sidewalk=separate
>>
>> In my software's logic, I've made the assumption that foot=* applies
>> to "the whole of the road" including the roadway, shoulders, verge,
>> sidewalks, and so forth and thus excluded any roads that include that 
>> tag,
>> regardless of other tagging. I came to understand that this tagging was
>> used by a mapper to indicate that "pedestrians are not allowed on the
>> roadway, however, they are allowed on the sidewalk"
>>
>> Would folks regard that as accurate data modeling?  I.e. should I
>> change my software to treat streets tagged in this way as
>> pedestrian-accessible, or would folks regard this combination as a 
>> tagging
>> error?
>>
>>
>> ___ Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
 ___

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

What I've been told (and someone showed me the law to back it up) is that
apparently in Texas, IF there is a sidewalk, you are not allowed to walk in
the roadway.

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 4:42 PM Ivo Reano  wrote:

> Are you saying that in Texas you can't walk on a street that doesn't have
> a sidewalk?
> Only in a city environment or also in a non-city environment?
> Or in Texas if you're on foot you're going nowhere?
> Definitely not human!
>
>
> Il giorno dom 18 dic 2022 alle ore 22:31 Brian M. Sperlongano <
> zelonew...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The tagging that I cited was from Texas in the USA.  In that location, it
>> is illegal to walk in the roadway (where the cars go), but there was a
>> separate sidewalk where pedestrians are supposed to walk.  However, my
>> software works globally so I'm trying to understand how that
>> `sidewalk=separate` + `foot=no` combination should be interpreted on a
>> global basis, or if I should just ignore those combinations as a tagging
>> error.
>>
>> So the situation is:
>> 1. There is a sidewalk, and it's mapped separately
>> 2. The road is tagged sidewalk=separate + foot=no
>> 3. It's illegal to walk in the road itself because there is a sidewalk
>> (state law in that area)
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 4:22 PM Ivo Reano  wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know in your area if all pedestrians who use the streets just
>>> because they don't have a car are punished.
>>> In Italy, only motorways and some major traffic routes are formally
>>> "forbidden" to pedestrian transit.
>>> If I found a foot=yes on a street, simply to indicate that one should
>>> not walk in the middle of the street, I would delete that tag (and send a
>>> message to the user asking what he meant).
>>> It seems obvious to me that if I walk on a road I keep to the left
>>> (excuse non-Anglo-Saxons, but this is the preferred direction for
>>> pedestrians on driveways in the rest of the world).
>>> While if I'm on a road with no traffic (not flat) I mostly walk on the
>>> downhill side.
>>> In short: if there isn't a sidewalk, and the street isn't reserved for
>>> vehicles (but where do you live?) foot=no it seems absurd to me, or rather
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> Ivo, Jrachi
>>>
>>> Il giorno dom 18 dic 2022 alle ore 22:05  ha scritto:
>>>
 Yes, only if the local legislation infers that pedestrians have to use
 a (usually car) road-accompanying sidewalk.

 Also, your project reminds me of wandrer.earth, where craig also
 introduced a way for running to track ran ways, not only for cyclists.
 Though i only use it for cycling.

 --
 Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android Mobiltelefon mit WEB.DE Mail
 gesendet.
 Am 18.12.22, 21:47 schrieb "Brian M. Sperlongano" >>> >:

> Thanks Cyton.
>
> Just to be clear, I'm only talking about automobile roads -
> highway=trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified/residential.
>
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 3:41 PM  wrote:
>
>> If and only if there is a separately mapped sidewalk.
>> Sidewalk=separate means there needs to be such a way.
>> However i would tag foot=use_sidepath, which means the same as
>> foot=no but also indicates the existence of a separate way usable for
>> routing.
>> And only if the highway is a streets centerline, not a cycleway or
>> other.
>>
>> Cyton
>> Am 18.12.22, 21:32 schrieb "Brian M. Sperlongano" <
>> zelonew...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am the author of a data consumer which generates a list of streets
>>> that are accessible to walkers and joggers. The idea is that a user 
>>> would
>>> have a map of the streets in their town and can challenge themselves to
>>> walk/jog down every street, and they can look at statistics on which
>>> streets they've completed.  I use a 25-meter rule, so if a user can walk
>>> along the shoulder, or on a sidewalk/pavement, or in the verge, that's
>>> acceptable.
>>>
>>> I recently came across an unexpected tagging combination and I would
>>> like to understand how folks in various places would interpret this:
>>>
>>> highway=
>>> foot=no
>>> sidewalk=separate
>>>
>>> In my software's logic, I've made the assumption that foot=* applies
>>> to "the whole of the road" including the roadway, shoulders, verge,
>>> sidewalks, and so forth and thus excluded any roads that include that 
>>> tag,
>>> regardless of other tagging. I came to understand that this tagging was
>>> used by a mapper to indicate that "pedestrians are not allowed on the
>>> roadway, however, they are allowed on the sidewalk"
>>>
>>> Would folks regard that as accurate data modeling?  I.e. should I
>>> change my software to treat streets tagged in this way as
>>> pedestrian-accessible, or would folks regard this combination as a 
>>> tagging
>>> error?
>>>
>>>
>>> 

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[stevea]

My understanding (in Texas, and other states) in this case (where there is no 
sidewalk and it is not legal to walk "in the roadway") is that in cases like 
these, there will always be an "easement" along at least one side of the road, 
where utilities (wired poles, perhaps underground piping...) are allowed, and 
so, too, is granted "permission of access" to pedestrians, for the right to 
walk along such easement.  This isn't quite-exactly "public property," as the 
easement remains a "strip" of private property along stitched-together private 
parcels, but by virtue of it being "an easement," explicit "public access" 
(e.g. pedestrians walking) IS allowed through such an easement.  So, for 
example, an access=yes tag (if not already implied) might be appropriate to 
explicitly include.

So, say you're in Texas, there is a roadway (and you are not allowed to walk in 
it, lest you run afoul of "pedestrian-in-roadway" ordinances) and there is NO 
sidewalk.  In this case there IS an "easement" (whether populated by utilities 
or not) where pedestrians are allowed, because pedestrians must be able to use 
the right-of-way of the road, too.  Just not IN the roadway, but along it.  
(And if there are wired poles along one side, choose that side).

On Dec 18, 2022, at 1:43 PM, Brian M. Sperlongano  wrote:
> What I've been told (and someone showed me the law to back it up) is that 
> apparently in Texas, IF there is a sidewalk, you are not allowed to walk in 
> the roadway.
> 
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 4:42 PM Ivo Reano  wrote:
> Are you saying that in Texas you can't walk on a street that doesn't have a 
> sidewalk?
> Only in a city environment or also in a non-city environment?
> Or in Texas if you're on foot you're going nowhere?
> Definitely not human!

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

Currently taking bets on how long it will take before someone actually
answers the question I posed 😂

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 5:03 PM stevea  wrote:

> My understanding (in Texas, and other states) in this case (where there is
> no sidewalk and it is not legal to walk "in the roadway") is that in cases
> like these, there will always be an "easement" along at least one side of
> the road, where utilities (wired poles, perhaps underground piping...) are
> allowed, and so, too, is granted "permission of access" to pedestrians, for
> the right to walk along such easement.  This isn't quite-exactly "public
> property," as the easement remains a "strip" of private property along
> stitched-together private parcels, but by virtue of it being "an easement,"
> explicit "public access" (e.g. pedestrians walking) IS allowed through such
> an easement.  So, for example, an access=yes tag (if not already implied)
> might be appropriate to explicitly include.
>
> So, say you're in Texas, there is a roadway (and you are not allowed to
> walk in it, lest you run afoul of "pedestrian-in-roadway" ordinances) and
> there is NO sidewalk.  In this case there IS an "easement" (whether
> populated by utilities or not) where pedestrians are allowed, because
> pedestrians must be able to use the right-of-way of the road, too.  Just
> not IN the roadway, but along it.  (And if there are wired poles along one
> side, choose that side).
>
> On Dec 18, 2022, at 1:43 PM, Brian M. Sperlongano 
> wrote:
> > What I've been told (and someone showed me the law to back it up) is
> that apparently in Texas, IF there is a sidewalk, you are not allowed to
> walk in the roadway.
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 4:42 PM Ivo Reano  wrote:
> > Are you saying that in Texas you can't walk on a street that doesn't
> have a sidewalk?
> > Only in a city environment or also in a non-city environment?
> > Or in Texas if you're on foot you're going nowhere?
> > Definitely not human!
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[stevea]

OSM is anarchy, a process, sometimes (mostly, I think) successful, though often 
messy.  It's not ringing up customer service and getting a Tier 3 professional 
answer, I'm sure you know that.  I don't need to say this, either, but 
"Patience!"  OSM is incremental.  (Sometimes, by millimeters or even microns!)

This is actually rather complicated, especially as "easements," a real thing in 
the real world, have hardly had their surface scratched in OSM.  It could get 
messy (I sigh, it's "usual") as in a whole Proposal et al, to tease apart how 
to map such easements, as they do appear to be extant in Texas (and other 
states).  I consider them a sort of "lazy legislation" where a pedestrian, for 
example, is expected to understand rather subtle aspects of law (property 
rights, trespass, etc.) and the legislature seems to have done the absolute 
minimum:  pass a law saying "can't walk in a roadway," pass a law making 
"mandatory but sometimes invisible" easements along roadways implicit, (so, the 
law says "they're there" but maybe you can't see them, even if you know them to 
legally exist), and dust your hands as "OK, we the ever-clever legislature are 
all done with this."  Leaves a bad taste in my mouth for both how I'm supposed 
to act as a pedestrian in such places (especially the ones with invisible 
easement — I might very well be on the wrong side of the road and could get 
ticketed on a really bad day) and for potential OSM tagging, which seems like 
it will need a "new headache" method of tagging (and mapping) these:  a big 
long strip of "easement" along every road where this is true?!  Ugh!  Say it 
ain't so!

> On Dec 18, 2022, at 2:11 PM, Brian M. Sperlongano  
> wrote:
> 
> Currently taking bets on how long it will take before someone actually 
> answers the question I posed 😂 
> 
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 5:03 PM stevea  wrote:
> My understanding (in Texas, and other states) in this case (where there is no 
> sidewalk and it is not legal to walk "in the roadway") is that in cases like 
> these, there will always be an "easement" along at least one side of the 
> road, where utilities (wired poles, perhaps underground piping...) are 
> allowed, and so, too, is granted "permission of access" to pedestrians, for 
> the right to walk along such easement.  This isn't quite-exactly "public 
> property," as the easement remains a "strip" of private property along 
> stitched-together private parcels, but by virtue of it being "an easement," 
> explicit "public access" (e.g. pedestrians walking) IS allowed through such 
> an easement.  So, for example, an access=yes tag (if not already implied) 
> might be appropriate to explicitly include.
> 
> So, say you're in Texas, there is a roadway (and you are not allowed to walk 
> in it, lest you run afoul of "pedestrian-in-roadway" ordinances) and there is 
> NO sidewalk.  In this case there IS an "easement" (whether populated by 
> utilities or not) where pedestrians are allowed, because pedestrians must be 
> able to use the right-of-way of the road, too.  Just not IN the roadway, but 
> along it.  (And if there are wired poles along one side, choose that side).
> 
> On Dec 18, 2022, at 1:43 PM, Brian M. Sperlongano  
> wrote:
> > What I've been told (and someone showed me the law to back it up) is that 
> > apparently in Texas, IF there is a sidewalk, you are not allowed to walk in 
> > the roadway.
> > 
> > On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 4:42 PM Ivo Reano  wrote:
> > Are you saying that in Texas you can't walk on a street that doesn't have a 
> > sidewalk?
> > Only in a city environment or also in a non-city environment?
> > Or in Texas if you're on foot you're going nowhere?
> > Definitely not human!
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 at 06:32, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

>
> I recently came across an unexpected tagging combination and I would like
> to understand how folks in various places would interpret this:
>
> highway=
> foot=no
> sidewalk=separate
>
> Would folks regard that as accurate data modeling?
>

Hmmm?

Possibly accurate but definitely confusing!

To me it says that there's a road here, which you can't walk on, but
there's also a separate sidewalk (is that even a thing? I thought
sidewalks, by definition, are hard up against the road?), but it doesn't
say whether or not you can walk on that? I guess I'd call it an error?

It would be much nicer to drop the sidewalk=separate from the road, & draw
a separate footway, which would fix everything!

Currently taking bets on how long it will take before someone actually
> answers the question I posed 😂
>

Are you happy now? :-)

What do I win? :-)

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Zeke Farwell]

I'll try to answer the original question as succinctly as possible.  As I
understand it, the combination foot=no + sidewalk=separate means walking is
not allowed at all on this street and the sidewalk belonging to this street
is mapped as a separate way.  Since the sidewalk belongs to the street,
foot=no applies to it as well.  It must be a sidewalk where walking is not
allowed since walking is not allowed anywhere on this street.

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 5:31 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 at 06:32, Brian M. Sperlongano 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I recently came across an unexpected tagging combination and I would like
>> to understand how folks in various places would interpret this:
>>
>> highway=
>> foot=no
>> sidewalk=separate
>>
>> Would folks regard that as accurate data modeling?
>>
>
> Hmmm?
>
> Possibly accurate but definitely confusing!
>
> To me it says that there's a road here, which you can't walk on, but
> there's also a separate sidewalk (is that even a thing? I thought
> sidewalks, by definition, are hard up against the road?), but it doesn't
> say whether or not you can walk on that? I guess I'd call it an error?
>
> It would be much nicer to drop the sidewalk=separate from the road, & draw
> a separate footway, which would fix everything!
>
> Currently taking bets on how long it will take before someone actually
>> answers the question I posed 😂
>>
>
> Are you happy now? :-)
>
> What do I win? :-)
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Jens Glad Balchen]

On 18.12.2022 23:11, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
Currently taking bets on how long it will take before someone actually 
answers the question I posed 😂




Seems to me, in the situation described, and with the tagging instances 
in Texas I could find, the tagging is accurate, in that it shows:


1. you're not allowed to walk on the carriageway (the way in question)
2. there is a sidewalk
3. the sidewalk is tagged separately
4. the sidewalk way does not have foot=no

So walking on this way is not allowed, but there is another way that you 
can walk on, and it's really close and should follow approximately the 
same geometry. It seems to me you can include this in your dataset.


As to the principle of sidewalk-like structures where walking is 
genuinely prohibited, I would say tagging that as a sidewalk would be 
incorrect. It looks like a duck, but it's probably something else.


There are instances that you wouldn't want to include in your router. 
E.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/658000911, which is similar 
except there is no sidewalk=separate. Walking on this "sidewalk" is 
probably prohibited, because to get to it, you have to pass a sign that 
says no walking, except if you manage to cross a gated fence (at the 
southern end). The "sidewalk" is probably for some other use, possibly 
emergencies, possibly something else, possibly just a waste of space. 
I'm not a big fan of this particular tagging because it is misleading 
and confusing.


I don't know how you would tell the difference, apart from the lack of 
sidewalk=separate on the carriageway.


Jens

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Jens Glad Balchen]

It would be much nicer to drop the sidewalk=separate from the road, & 
draw a separate footway, which would fix everything!




There are separately drawn footways in his Texan cases, just as you 
could hopefully expect from sidewalk=separate.


Jens___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[stevea]

On Dec 18, 2022, at 3:06 PM, Jens Glad Balchen  wrote:
> I don't know how you would tell the difference, apart from the lack of 
> sidewalk=separate on the carriageway.

Right, this can be problematic, both for pedestrians (who might not know "the 
law" or "what pedestrian access am I actually allowed here?") as well as for 
OSM (how to tag?)

"Quacks like a duck" tests are good, though I think OSM can do better at 
specifying and realizing explicit tags — or implicit tags, because of 
well-understandable rules that a parser/router/renderer/use case can implement. 
 We seem to have a fair distance still to go here, as while Brian's question 
seems it is getting some answers (how you feeling about those, Brian?) it also 
seems like it's getting some "what about easements...?" side-discussion, as 
well.  There are likely other subtle issues here to be addressed, I think there 
are parts of the world where even what we've said so far won't completely 
describe the real-world fully or even sufficiently.

It's seldom easy around here!  But I'm delighted to be exchanging this 
roll-up-our-sleeves discussion as we do.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

Hello,

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 6:08 PM Jens Glad Balchen 
wrote:

>
> There are instances that you wouldn't want to include in your router.
> E.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/658000911, which is similar
> except there is no sidewalk=separate. Walking on this "sidewalk" is
> probably prohibited, because to get to it, you have to pass a sign that
> says no walking, except if you manage to cross a gated fence (at the
> southern end). The "sidewalk" is probably for some other use, possibly
> emergencies, possibly something else, possibly just a waste of space.
> I'm not a big fan of this particular tagging because it is misleading
> and confusing.
>
> I don't know how you would tell the difference, apart from the lack of
> sidewalk=separate on the carriageway.
>

The way cited here is a highway=footway, and my dataset only includes the
roadways themselves, not footway/cycleway, etc, by design and intent.

In that case, there is an adjacent highway=trunk road (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/68648993) which is tagged foot=no, with
no sidewalk tagging.  In this case, my job is easy - the foot=no tells me
that I should exclude that road, and since the nearby sidewalk is not
actually accessible based on your description, it sounds like it's
correctly tagged.  This case is not a problem at all.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 15:00 2022-12-18, Zeke Farwell đã viết:
I'll try to answer the original question as succinctly as possible.  As 
I understand it, the combination foot=no + sidewalk=separate means 
walking is not allowed at all on this street and the sidewalk belonging 
to this street is mapped as a separate way.  Since the sidewalk belongs 
to the street, foot=no applies to it as well.  It must be a sidewalk 
where walking is not allowed since walking is not allowed anywhere on 
this street.


Does any router actually interpret access tags as you're describing?

It seems like quite a stretch that a router would automatically infer a 
sidewalk's access tags from some parallel roadway, not least for the 
reason that we lack an established method to associate the sidewalk with 
the way. [1] (sidewalk=separate refers to a sidewalk way, but there's 
nothing in the other direction.) It would be something of a first for 
OSM that you could download a complete extract within a certain bbox, 
including any relation memberships, and the footways along the edges of 
this bbox could be subject to a tag that hasn't been downloaded yet.


Compounding matters, there are places where cyclists are prohibited from 
using sidewalks and other places where cyclists are required to use 
sidewalks when present. What should a router do if somehow it is able to 
determine the parallel roadway and finds a bicycle=no on it? What other 
access keys of the unconnected roadway are relevant to routing on a 
sidewalk? What about other things that are "part of the street", such as 
busways?


[1] https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/6255

--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Jens Glad Balchen]

The way cited here is a highway=footway, and my dataset only includes 
the roadways themselves, not footway/cycleway, etc, by design and intent.


In that case, there is an adjacent highway=trunk road 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/68648993) which is tagged foot=no, 
with no sidewalk tagging.  In this case, my job is easy - the foot=no 
tells me that I should exclude that road, and since the nearby 
sidewalk is not actually accessible based on your description, it 
sounds like it's correctly tagged.  This case is not a problem at all.




While I object to the premise that cycleways and footways are not 
roadways, I'm happy this instance does not cause you trouble :)


Jens___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 159, Issue 32

[Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais via Tagging]

When a sidewalk is mapped separately, foot=use_sidepath should be used on the 
road itself (like Cyton mentioned).

This tag combination is used by more and more routing engines (see osrm 
profiles) to force routing on the sidewalk instead of the road. Using foot=no 
would have the exact same effect, but the problem is that the road itself then 
looses the information that a sidewalk has been mapped alongside with 
footway=sidewalk, which could be a problem for any person wanting to analyze 
pedestrian access. But when I am editing inQuebec province, I use 
sidewalk:both/left/right=separate also to specify on which side(s) there is a 
separate sidewalk mapped.

So to summarize:

- if the sidewalks are present but not mapped separately: use 
sidewalk:both/left/right=yes/no
- if the sidewalks are mapped separately (usually highway=footway and 
footway=sidewalk, use foot=use_sidepath on the main road with 
sidewalk:both/left/right=separate or no
- add foot=no on a road only if there is a specific sign saying so and it is 
not a motorway or motorway_link (which are foot=no by default, and thus not 
needed)
- for highway=trunk and trunk_link, I usually add the specification for 
foot=yes/no according to signs, because this is the only road type which can be 
ambiguous by default.

> On Dec 18, 2022, at 4:28 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
> 
> Send Tagging mailing list submissions to
>   tagging@openstreetmap.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   tagging-ow...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Tagging digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: Re:  Foot / sidewalk access tagging (cyton_...@web.de)
>   2. Re: Foot / sidewalk access tagging (Ivo Reano)
>   3. Re: Foot / sidewalk access tagging (Brian M. Sperlongano)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2022 22:03:00 +0100
> From: cyton_...@web.de
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Re:  Foot / sidewalk access tagging
> Message-ID:
>   
> 
>   
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20221218/8f432217/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2022 22:19:52 +0100
> From: Ivo Reano 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging
> Message-ID:
>   
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> I don't know in your area if all pedestrians who use the streets just
> because they don't have a car are punished.
> In Italy, only motorways and some major traffic routes are formally
> "forbidden" to pedestrian transit.
> If I found a foot=yes on a street, simply to indicate that one should not
> walk in the middle of the street, I would delete that tag (and send a
> message to the user asking what he meant).
> It seems obvious to me that if I walk on a road I keep to the left (excuse
> non-Anglo-Saxons, but this is the preferred direction for pedestrians on
> driveways in the rest of the world).
> While if I'm on a road with no traffic (not flat) I mostly walk on the
> downhill side.
> In short: if there isn't a sidewalk, and the street isn't reserved for
> vehicles (but where do you live?) foot=no it seems absurd to me, or rather
> wrong.
> 
> Ivo, Jrachi
> 
> Il giorno dom 18 dic 2022 alle ore 22:05  ha scritto:
> 
>> Yes, only if the local legislation infers that pedestrians have to use a
>> (usually car) road-accompanying sidewalk.
>> 
>> Also, your project reminds me of wandrer.earth, where craig also
>> introduced a way for running to track ran ways, not only for cyclists.
>> Though i only use it for cycling.
>> 
>> --
>> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android Mobiltelefon mit WEB.DE Mail
>> gesendet.
>> Am 18.12.22, 21:47 schrieb "Brian M. Sperlongano" :
>> 
>>> Thanks Cyton.
>>> 
>>> Just to be clear, I'm only talking about automobile roads -
>>> highway=trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified/residential.
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 3:41 PM  wrote:
>>> 
>>

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 at 09:33, Minh Nguyen 
wrote:

> other places where cyclists are required to use sidewalks when present.


& then you have places like where I am, where e-scooters are allowed to use
marked bike lanes, riding at speeds up to 25kph (15mph?) on streets with a
speed limit up to 50kph (25mph?). If the street speed limit is more than
that, though, then the e-scooter has to use the footpath / sidewalk, but is
then only allowed to ride at a max 12kph (8mph), but cyclists can ride at
whatever speed they like either in the bike lane or on the footpath!

Whenever I try to think about tagging that one in OSM, my brain just says
NO! :-(

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Zeke Farwell]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 6:33 PM Minh Nguyen 
wrote:

> Vào lúc 15:00 2022-12-18, Zeke Farwell đã viết:
> > I'll try to answer the original question as succinctly as possible.  As
> > I understand it, the combination foot=no + sidewalk=separate means
> > walking is not allowed at all on this street and the sidewalk belonging
> > to this street is mapped as a separate way.  Since the sidewalk belongs
> > to the street, foot=no applies to it as well.  It must be a sidewalk
> > where walking is not allowed since walking is not allowed anywhere on
> > this street.
>
> Does any router actually interpret access tags as you're describing?
>
> It seems like quite a stretch that a router would automatically infer a
> sidewalk's access tags from some parallel roadway,
>

Perhaps I should not have aimed for brevity.  I would not expect a router
or any other data consumer to infer access tags from a parallel way.  In my
theoretical sidewalk where walking is not allowed I would expect the
separately mapped sidewalk way to also be tagged with foot=no.  In case
it's not clear, I mean this as a joke and I don't expect this would
actually be sensible tagging anywhere, but who knows.  Essentially I'm just
saying I don't think putting foot=no on the main roadway when sidewalks are
mapped separately is helpful.  Just tag sidewalk=separate.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 17:29 2022-12-18, Zeke Farwell đã viết:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 6:33 PM Minh Nguyen 
> wrote:


Vào lúc 15:00 2022-12-18, Zeke Farwell đã viết:
 > I'll try to answer the original question as succinctly as
possible.  As
 > I understand it, the combination foot=no + sidewalk=separate means
 > walking is not allowed at all on this street and the sidewalk
belonging
 > to this street is mapped as a separate way.  Since the sidewalk
belongs
 > to the street, foot=no applies to it as well.  It must be a sidewalk
 > where walking is not allowed since walking is not allowed
anywhere on
 > this street.

Does any router actually interpret access tags as you're describing?

It seems like quite a stretch that a router would automatically infer a
sidewalk's access tags from some parallel roadway,


Perhaps I should not have aimed for brevity.  I would not expect a 
router or any other data consumer to infer access tags from a parallel 
way.  In my theoretical sidewalk where walking is not allowed I would 
expect the separately mapped sidewalk way to also be tagged with 
foot=no.  In case it's not clear, I mean this as a joke and I don't 
expect this would actually be sensible tagging anywhere, but who knows.  
Essentially I'm just saying I don't think putting foot=no on the main 
roadway when sidewalks are mapped separately is helpful.  Just tag 
sidewalk=separate.


Joke's on me then! :-D

If foot=no is problematic for use cases like the one that Brian 
described, then foot=use_sidepath would be more precise for saying, "No 
feet *here*, but see also: separate sidewalk."


--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

18 gru 2022, 23:27 od graemefi...@gmail.com:

> It would be much nicer to drop the sidewalk=separate from the road, & draw a 
> separate footway, which would fix everything!
>
note that sidewalk=separate is used to indicate that separately mapped 
sidewalk(s)
is/are mapped.

Not sure why you propose to delete it in such case.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

That is an irritating case.

1) with you assumptions it is possible to argue that it refers to case where
there is a separately mapped sidewalk that nevertheless is inaccessible
(some technical/escape route in a tunnel or on motorway?)

2) in practise it is far more likely to be used in case where user tags each
way with own access tags.
Basically
> that foot=* applies to "the whole of the road" including the roadway,
> shoulders, verge, sidewalks, and so forth
has added at the end
> "unless represented with separate geometry"

3) to avoid problem from (2) foot=use_sidepath was invented to mark
"yes, on carriageway you cannot walk, but you can walk on separately
mapped sidewalk"

---

practical advise:

- if there is no separately mapped footway then sidewalk=separate
is wrong and should be fixed
- if pedestrian cannot walk on carriageway and can on sidewalk
and it is separately mapped then use foot=use_sidepath instead

---

No idea:

- how to tag situation from (1) that distinguishes it from case (2)

Not sure:
- should we treat foot=no instead of foot=use_sidepath in case (2)
as invalid data

> Would folks regard that as accurate data modeling?  I.e. should I change my 
> software to treat streets tagged in this way as pedestrian-accessible, or 
> would folks regard this combination as a tagging error?
>
For start, is there a separately mapped sidewalk geometry there?
If no then tagging is invalid.
If yes, then I personally would be treating as invalid data and assume road to 
be 
pedestrian accessible, maybe flag is worth reviewing and ask users for feddback
what is going on there and ask for photo.

18 gru 2022, 21:29 od zelonew...@gmail.com:

> Hello,
>
> I am the author of a data consumer which generates a list of streets that are 
> accessible to walkers and joggers. The idea is that a user would have a map 
> of the streets in their town and can challenge themselves to walk/jog down 
> every street, and they can look at statistics on which streets they've 
> completed.  I use a 25-meter rule, so if a user can walk along the shoulder, 
> or on a sidewalk/pavement, or in the verge, that's acceptable.
>
> I recently came across an unexpected tagging combination and I would like to 
> understand how folks in various places would interpret this:
>
> highway=
> foot=no
> sidewalk=separate
>
> In my software's logic, I've made the assumption that foot=* applies to "the 
> whole of the road" including the roadway, shoulders, verge, sidewalks, and so 
> forth and thus excluded any roads that include that tag, regardless of other 
> tagging. I came to understand that this tagging was used by a mapper to 
> indicate that "pedestrians are not allowed on the roadway, however, they are 
> allowed on the sidewalk"
>
> Would folks regard that as accurate data modeling?  I.e. should I change my 
> software to treat streets tagged in this way as pedestrian-accessible, or 
> would folks regard this combination as a tagging error?
>
>
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gender

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

If we have inconsistent tagging of unisex=yes and it is unclear which
is its meaning then passing proposal does not really solve it

unisex=yes data will still have the same problem

in case of such damaged tag[1] it would be better to introduce a new one

(though if vast majority is using this tag in this way and it merely reaffirms 
it
then it is fine, but 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Gender#Rationale
does not read this way)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunked_term

17 gru 2022, 23:16 od illiamarchenk...@gmail.com:

> Thanks for feedback! 
>
> Marc_marc <> marc_m...@mailo.com> >:
>
>> Le 17.12.22 à 21:58, Illia Marchenko a écrit :
>>  > Gender proposal is ready for voting. After the previous vote, this 
>>  > proposal has been reworked. I plan to start voting in a few days.
>>  > >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Gender>>  
>> <>> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Gender>> >
>>  
>>  Isn't it good practice to have an RFC after the last change
>>  (i.e. today) ?
>>
>
>
>>
>>
> RFC isn't voting. 
>
>
>> Always pushing to go faster only leads to no votes and starting over-
>>  in skimming the proposal, i didn't understand how redefining the meaning 
>>  of 3 tags will remove the ambiguity of one of the (unisex=yes)
>>
>
>
>>
>>
> This proposal isn't limited to clarification of the unisex=yes. 
>
>
>> Don't expect all contributors to read the counter-intuitive explanations 
>>  you offer.
>>  a =segrated =not-segrated value would be much more intuitive
>>
>
>
>>
>>
> I added  female=separate and male=separate to the proposal. 
>
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Marc_marc]

Le 18.12.22 à 21:29, Brian M. Sperlongano a écrit :

I would like to understand how folks in various places would interpret this:

highway=
foot=no
sidewalk=separate


I interpret it exactly as you describe it in the text:
there is a carrierway not allowed to pedestrians
there is another object to describe the sidewalk
if you don't want to load highway=footway/path,
then use this highway=* but the accuracy will be
a little less good since the geometry will be that
of the centre of the carrierway and not that of
the centre of the sidewalk

regarding the alternative :
highway=
foot=no
sidewalk=use_sidepath
it doesn't have the same meaning, it said that a sidewalk
exist but it doesn't said that the sidewalk have another object.
as a datauser agaim, if you don't want to load highway=footway/path,
then use this highway=*

but the real question is why would you not want to load objects
specific [1] to your use case, I find that strange

[1] highway=path path=sidewalk or highway=footway footway=sidewalk
and mayb highway=cycleway cycleway=sidewalk

Regards,
Marc



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging