Thanks, Tobias for pointing me to the sidewalk additional tagging. I missed that. This addresses my immediate need.
Regarding the greater picture, I personally try to get away with not mapping separate sidewalks mainly because of the amount of work involved, whereas I do prefer the separate-way approach for road-accompanying cycleways and foot-cycle-ways. But this is only because I simply do not find the time and limit myself to the sidewalk=no|left|right|left mapping for road accompanying footways. But as far as the association of roads and accompanying separate foot and/or cycleways, the problem is independent of the type of the accompanying way. In my mapping so far I have not created any association relations for cycle paths, again because of the time involved. I should add that I typically enter data along my cycling tours, and my accent is on getting the road and cycle path I properties (surface, smoothness, width, road type, illumination, speed limits) properly inserted, using Mapillary photos as the main instrument. I also shy away from using the street relation, because of its complexity, in particolar the need to include the house numbers. It would be much easier if the street relation would only have to deal with the main carriageway and accompanying footways and/or cycleways, but that is a different subject. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On 10 December 2017 at 21:19, Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de> wrote: > On 10.12.2017 19:25, Nick Bolten wrote: > > More or less, you describe sidewalks as `highway=footway` > > `footway=sidewalk` > > Unfortunately, this breaks the semantic relationship between sidewalks > and the rest of the road ("this section of sidewalk belongs to that road > section"). Many applications do need that relationship, and it's pretty > much impossible to derive it automatically from separately mapped > sidewalk ways. > > A great thing about OSM is that a mapper adding data will normally > benefit all users of that data, even if they themselves are only > motivated by one of the possible use cases. But that doesn't work if the > same tagging scheme that enables one use case blocks or breaks another. > > > For example, you > > wouldn't have to make an executive decision about `sidewalk:width` vs > > `width:sidewalk` - just use the widely-documented `width` tag. > > The format for sidewalk sub-tagging has already been documented in the > wiki, so it's not really a decision that needs to be made on an > individual basis: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk#Additional_tags > > That section also already mentions wheelchair sub-tags which would solve > Volker's problem: > > sidewalk:left:wheelchair = * > sidewalk:right:wheelchair = * > sidewalk:both:wheelchair = * > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
