* Ed Hillsman <ehills...@tampabay.rr.com> [2011-04-02 22:26 -0400]: > With regard to routing, sidewalks on college campuses, in parks, and > in cemeteries may be interior to a large area bounded by streets, > and as a result some may not have an associated street to use for a > name.
I don't think those would qualify as "sidewalks" for purposes of this discussion, since the two proposals both only consider pedestrian walkways that run along and adjacent to roads. If a walkway doesn't have those characteristics, it would just get tagged as highway=footway (probably with surface=paved), and given a name= only if it has its own, distinct, name. > Would it work to add a tag "associated_street" and then simply list the > name of the street? For example, highway=footway, > associated_street="East Fowler Avenue". This might not be a bad idea. It makes the association without using a relation (about which there have been concerns raised regarding the complexity of handling, both for mappers and data consumers). > A value of "none" could be coded if the sidewalk does not parallel a > street. I think that the absence of the tag could reasonably be assumed to be equivalent to "no associated street" but, like oneway=no, it doesn't hurt to have an explicit value for that case. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- 1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's the law! ---- --- -- _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
