Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais wrote: > > When a sidewalk is mapped separately, foot=use_sidepath should be used on the > road itself (like Cyton mentioned). [...] 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.
It seems to me that `foot=use_sidepath` contradicts the 'Don't map local legislation if not bound to specific objects' principle [^1]. Therefore i think `sidewalk=separate` (or `sidewalk:[left|right|both]=separate`) should be preferred. This latter tag is much clearer, can be preciser and has the advantage that mappers don't need to know the local legislation (i.e. whether the pavement has to be used or not - although i normally don't see any reason not to use an existing pavement). [^1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_local_legislation_if_not_bound_to_specific_objects Best regards Raphael On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 at 01:19, Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > 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" > > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Re: Foot / sidewalk access tagging > > Message-ID: > > > > <trinity-12288605-c182-42e9-af0c-db5ccc0b2c91-1671397380242@msvc-mesg-web011> > > > > 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 <reano...@gmail.com> > > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging > > Message-ID: > > <CAK2t+CCLC85CB=vttau9rym0zymiztifof3rdj1yg8vrifx...@mail.gmail.com> > > 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 <cyton_...@web.de> 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" <zelonew...@gmail.com>: > >> > >>> 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 <cyton_...@web.de> 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=<whatever> > >>>>> 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 > >> > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20221218/abef7fa3/attachment-0001.htm> > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2022 16:28:03 -0500 > > From: "Brian M. Sperlongano" <zelonew...@gmail.com> > > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging > > Message-ID: > > <CAMrfQx3_GOHynUgnpLQqV9aNrNf+cOx=g0fjzl+lhk29o_m...@mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > 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 <reano...@gmail.com> 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 <cyton_...@web.de> 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" <zelonew...@gmail.com>: > >>> > >>>> 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 <cyton_...@web.de> 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=<whatever> > >>>>>> 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 > >> > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20221218/a02ee9c2/attachment.htm> > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of Tagging Digest, Vol 159, Issue 32 > > **************************************** > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
