On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:12:55 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2011/3/21 David Paleino <da...@debian.org>: > > >> I agree with Serge: you would change the meaning of highway=footway > >> (because to interpret it right after your amendment, you would have to > >> look at the footway-key as well). > > > > Why? > > Sidewalks are just a particular case of highway=footway. A router that > > doesn't know about footway=*, can treat the sidewalk just fine, because it > > is a footway, after all. > > No. Serge's way does tell the router that the sidewalk is just a part > of the road, and that you can cross the road anytime. Your proposal > doesn't tell the router this, and it would have to check for the next > crossing and route you there and back if your target was just on the > other side of the road.
Then, if you really want, we can just add one tag to the road, say (weird key name, but just to understand each other): is_crossable_everywhere=yes. > To not be misunderstood: I prefer explicit sidewalks (=separate ways) > as I wrote above. But you should not map them as if they were > independent ways. They aren't: have you checked my proposal? They're part of the same relation (street, or associatedStreet). A router would only check for a highway=crossing node on the way itself if an option "only cross road at permitted places" is marked. No? -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
