2011/3/22 Josh Doe <j...@joshdoe.com>: > Martin, > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:32 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2011/3/21 David Paleino <da...@debian.org>: >>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:12:55 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >>>> 2011/3/21 David Paleino <da...@debian.org>: >>>> 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). >> >> >> If you need a relation for every sidewalk, it is clear that you are >> redefining footway, because not interpreting this relation will lead >> to misunderstanding for all footways (they would be understood as >> independent ways and routing would work worse then with no sidewalk >> mapped at all). > > Adding footway=sidewalk is not redefining highway=footway, just like > saying service=parking_aisle is not redefining highway=service, rather > it is a refinement.
I disagree here. In the case of service it is a refinement, but in the case of footway it is not, because highway=service is the tag to use for smaller service ways, but highway=footway is not the tag you use for lanes (a kind of which sidewalks are), it is a tag that you use only on independent ways. The sidewalk is already comprised in the main road according to our data model, and adding a separate highway=footway indicates that there is a barrier between the footway and the road. To overcome this, you would have to use highway=footway on lanes / sidewalks, what is not in accordance with the current conventions. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
