Sidewalks

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Sidewalks

Roland Olbricht-3
Dear all,

our current pedestrian routers often don't give street names, but instead only instructions like "look for the line on the map".
To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately mapped footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name.

The suggestion had been widely discussed with the German community. Finally we found the following approach:

Keep separation rules as already established:

A sidewalk (or bike lane) shall be mapped as a separate way only if a pedestrian cannot cross the car lanes at any point, i.e. there are fences or grass strip between footway and the car lanes.

Change the tagging suggestion for separated sidewalks and bike lanes:
- Sidewalks should carry "highway=footway" + "footway=sidewalk" + "name=Name of the Street" (already in widespread use)
- Bike lanes should carry "highway=cycleway" + "cycleway=sidewalk" + "name=Name of the Street" (similar problem)

Currently, both the suggestion of "footway=sidewalk" (similar for cycling) and copying the name is not suggested consistenly in the wiki. Are there any objections to clean-up the wiki with that regard?

Side effects on other tools are almost uniformly positive:
- Having the name multiple times on the various chunks of a street is a standard OSM policy.
- Renderers could handle abundant name tags by ignoring names on ways tagged with "footway/cycleway=sidewalk"
- Routing engines actually can improve by having the name of the road
- Quality assurance tools would also profit by having more hints for checking

Best regards,

Roland

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sidewalks

Janko Mihelić

I agree with suggesting adding names to sidewalks.

I'm not sure about only mapping sidewalks that are  separated from the road. I agree it has some logic to it, but what about mapping sidewalk width, surface, markings on the ground for the blind, and all those attributes a sidewalk can have? Tagging that on the road makes an even bigger mess of tags.

Janko


sub, 25. tra 2015. 11:30 Roland Olbricht <[hidden email]> je napisao:
Dear all,

our current pedestrian routers often don't give street names, but instead only instructions like "look for the line on the map".
To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately mapped footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name.

The suggestion had been widely discussed with the German community. Finally we found the following approach:

Keep separation rules as already established:

A sidewalk (or bike lane) shall be mapped as a separate way only if a pedestrian cannot cross the car lanes at any point, i.e. there are fences or grass strip between footway and the car lanes.

Change the tagging suggestion for separated sidewalks and bike lanes:
- Sidewalks should carry "highway=footway" + "footway=sidewalk" + "name=Name of the Street" (already in widespread use)
- Bike lanes should carry "highway=cycleway" + "cycleway=sidewalk" + "name=Name of the Street" (similar problem)

Currently, both the suggestion of "footway=sidewalk" (similar for cycling) and copying the name is not suggested consistenly in the wiki. Are there any objections to clean-up the wiki with that regard?

Side effects on other tools are almost uniformly positive:
- Having the name multiple times on the various chunks of a street is a standard OSM policy.
- Renderers could handle abundant name tags by ignoring names on ways tagged with "footway/cycleway=sidewalk"
- Routing engines actually can improve by having the name of the road
- Quality assurance tools would also profit by having more hints for checking

Best regards,

Roland

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sidewalks

Tordanik
In reply to this post by Roland Olbricht-3
On 25.04.2015 11:29, wrote Roland Olbricht:
> A sidewalk (or bike lane) shall be mapped as a separate way only if a
> pedestrian cannot cross the car lanes at any point, i.e. there are
> fences or grass strip between footway and the car lanes.

Uh, the example in the other thread was a fence. Grass strips are easily
crossable for most pedestrians.

Given the number of problems that arise from separately mapping
sidewalks, we should only do it if strictly necessary. That is not the
case with most grass strips, especially narrow ones of uniform length.


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sidewalks

Serge Wroclawski-2
In reply to this post by Roland Olbricht-3
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Roland Olbricht <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> our current pedestrian routers often don't give street names, but instead
> only instructions like "look for the line on the map".

> To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately mapped
> footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name.

Why do that instead of just adding a single tag to the road?


> Keep separation rules as already established:

Can you explain the benefit of this vs a single tag on the way such as
sidewalk=yes or sidewalk={left|right}?

- Serge

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sidewalks

SimonPoole

As somebody that has mapped a fair amount of sidewalks as separate ways
(for good reasons) I'm rather split on  the issue (and as a tendency
against adding names to objects that don't actually have them).

The adding a tag to the street in question is all fine and dandy, if

- it is actually a classical sidewalk with just a kerb or a thin strip
of grass,

- you don't need to model a route over the sidewalk or are only
interested in automatic routing,

- you are not adding extra tags for surface, width etc.

In reality classical sidewalks might be the norm in suburbia where in
turn detailed mapping is not such hot topic, but in urban areas (at
least here) you will find easily find on -one- blocks length a
combination, of classical sidewalk, separated by a flowerbed, a wall,
being covered arcade and a couple of things I've likely forgotten.

I don't believe splitting a sidewalk in to 10 different pieces just to
model it to a very impractical doctrine makes any sense.

A further problem is that we currently don't have any other way (than
seperate ways) to model using sidewalks in route relations, which is
particularly an issue if changing sides of the street in question is a
problem (traffic, surface, other issues).

Janko has already pointed out that mapping details of the sidewalks
becomes rather cumbersome (both for mapper and consumer) for physical
details and similar.

In summary I don't quite see why we can't leave it up to the mapper to
choose the appropriate solution. And a properly tagged sidewalk
(highway=footway, footway=sidewalk) can always be ignored if the
application is question is not interested.

Simon


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sidewalks

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by Serge Wroclawski-2
Hi,

On 04/25/2015 12:33 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
>> To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately mapped
>> footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name.

> Why do that instead of just adding a single tag to the road?

Roland's use case is routing for pedestrians.

If a road has a tag indicating "this road has a sidewalk" but the
sidewalk is not mapped separately, then the router will lead the
pedestrian onto the road which is ok.

If however the sidewalk is - for whatever reason - mapped as a separate
highway=footway, then today it will often be un-named, which leads to
the routing engine generating instructions like "follow un-named footway
for 2 miles" when instead it should be "follow (footway along) Main
Street for 2 miles".

Roland's point is that it is too complicated for a routing engine to
guess that one un-named footway is really part of "Main Street" and
should be announced as such, whereas another un-named footway might
really be nameless.

His initial suggestion was to simply add the street name to every
separately mapped sidewalk. This was criticised because it would likely
lead to labeling chaos on the rendering side (with renderers then having
to drop footway labeling altogether or implement complex rules like
"don't label this if there's a roughly parallel street of the same name"
or so). Roland then amended his suggestion to say that if a sidewalk
receives (a copy of) the name of the street then it should also be
tagged footway=sidewalk so that renderers could choose to omit only the
names of these (and not all footways).

Personally I am still doubtful whether the sidewalk next to "X Street"
really has the name "X Street" but at least the addition of
footway=sidewalk would let users decide how to handle it. For example, a
geocoder would likely want to omit indexing footway=sidewalk for forward
geocoding.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sidewalks

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Janko Mihelić




Am 25.04.2015 um 11:57 schrieb Janko Mihelić <[hidden email]>:

I'm not sure about only mapping sidewalks that are  separated from the road. I agree it has some logic to it, but what about mapping sidewalk width, surface, markings on the ground for the blind, and all those attributes a sidewalk can have? Tagging that on the road makes an even bigger mess of tags.



+1, even worse are barriers on the sidewalk, nearly impossible to map them without the sidewalk being mapped

cheers 
Martin

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sidewalks

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Tordanik




> Am 25.04.2015 um 12:30 schrieb Tobias Knerr <[hidden email]>:
>
>
> Uh, the example in the other thread was a fence. Grass strips are easily
> crossable for most pedestrians.
>
> Given the number of problems that arise from separately mapping
> sidewalks, we should only do it if strictly necessary. That is not the
> case with most grass strips, especially narrow ones of uniform length.


how would you map these grass strips themselves? As lanes? If they have a particular shape you want to map? IMHO as soon as there are different carriageways we should map them separately, and state this clearly to avoid edit wars...


cheers
Martin
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sidewalks

Cartinus
In reply to this post by Roland Olbricht-3
Hello,

I have no problem with most of it, but can you please come up with
something else in stead of cycleway=sidewalk. This sounds like the
cyclists have to cycle on the part of the road reserved for pedestrians
or if the cycleway itself has a sidewalk.

I don't know if cycleway=sidepath is proper English, but at least it
fits with the tagging scheme of bicycle=use_sidepath.

cycleway=sidewalk used only 231 times:
<http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway=sidewalk>

(use_)sidepath used many more times:
<http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org//search?q=sidepath#values>

---
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

On 25-04-15 11:29, Roland Olbricht wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> our current pedestrian routers often don't give street names, but
> instead only instructions like "look for the line on the map".
> To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately
> mapped footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name.
>
> The suggestion had been widely discussed with the German community.
> Finally we found the following approach:
>
> Keep separation rules as already established:
>
> A sidewalk (or bike lane) shall be mapped as a separate way only if a
> pedestrian cannot cross the car lanes at any point, i.e. there are
> fences or grass strip between footway and the car lanes.
>
> Change the tagging suggestion for separated sidewalks and bike lanes:
> - Sidewalks should carry "highway=footway" + "footway=sidewalk" +
> "name=Name of the Street" (already in widespread use)
> - Bike lanes should carry "highway=cycleway" + "cycleway=sidewalk" +
> "name=Name of the Street" (similar problem)
>
> Currently, both the suggestion of "footway=sidewalk" (similar for
> cycling) and copying the name is not suggested consistenly in the wiki.
> Are there any objections to clean-up the wiki with that regard?
>
> Side effects on other tools are almost uniformly positive:
> - Having the name multiple times on the various chunks of a street is a
> standard OSM policy.
> - Renderers could handle abundant name tags by ignoring names on ways
> tagged with "footway/cycleway=sidewalk"
> - Routing engines actually can improve by having the name of the road
> - Quality assurance tools would also profit by having more hints for
> checking
>
> Best regards,
>
> Roland


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sidewalks

Pmailkeey .
First point is the definition of sidewalk as such they should never be mapped as separate routes but tags for such added to the highway. If there is no direct access from the footway to the carriageway, it is not a sidewalk.

Cartinus, cycleway=sidewalk is understandable by me as being a shared use cycleway with the pedestrians along the side of the carriageway - and should be dealt with the addition of tags to the highway and not by adding a new feature.

On 25 April 2015 at 15:31, Cartinus <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

I have no problem with most of it, but can you please come up with something else in stead of cycleway=sidewalk. This sounds like the cyclists have to cycle on the part of the road reserved for pedestrians or if the cycleway itself has a sidewalk.

I don't know if cycleway=sidepath is proper English, but at least it fits with the tagging scheme of bicycle=use_sidepath.

cycleway=sidewalk used only 231 times:
<http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway=sidewalk>

(use_)sidepath used many more times:
<http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org//search?q=sidepath#values>

---
m.v.g.,
Cartinus


On 25-04-15 11:29, Roland Olbricht wrote:
Dear all,

our current pedestrian routers often don't give street names, but
instead only instructions like "look for the line on the map".
To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately
mapped footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name.

The suggestion had been widely discussed with the German community.
Finally we found the following approach:

Keep separation rules as already established:

A sidewalk (or bike lane) shall be mapped as a separate way only if a
pedestrian cannot cross the car lanes at any point, i.e. there are
fences or grass strip between footway and the car lanes.

Change the tagging suggestion for separated sidewalks and bike lanes:
- Sidewalks should carry "highway=footway" + "footway=sidewalk" +
"name=Name of the Street" (already in widespread use)
- Bike lanes should carry "highway=cycleway" + "cycleway=sidewalk" +
"name=Name of the Street" (similar problem)

Currently, both the suggestion of "footway=sidewalk" (similar for
cycling) and copying the name is not suggested consistenly in the wiki.
Are there any objections to clean-up the wiki with that regard?

Side effects on other tools are almost uniformly positive:
- Having the name multiple times on the various chunks of a street is a
standard OSM policy.
- Renderers could handle abundant name tags by ignoring names on ways
tagged with "footway/cycleway=sidewalk"
- Routing engines actually can improve by having the name of the road
- Quality assurance tools would also profit by having more hints for
checking

Best regards,

Roland


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



--
Mike.
@millomweb - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via the area's premier website - 

currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sidewalks

brycenesbitt
Another possibility is somewhat radical:
  • Non-routing or "decorative" ways for sidepaths.
The current highway tags are quite good for routing a pedestrian or cyclist from intersection to intersection, and thus
over any reasonable distance.

However there's a desire for what amounts to drawing pretty lines on the map: modelling the details of the sidewalks and sidepaths.
In suburban areas that often means a winding sidewalk next to a major road.  In many places the definition is fuzzy, as there are
all variants from fully separated to right up at the curb.

Maybe splitting routing tags ("how it connects") from rendering ("how it looks") has merit.

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sidewalks

Pmailkeey .


On 25 April 2015 at 18:22, Bryce Nesbitt <[hidden email]> wrote:
Another possibility is somewhat radical:
  • Non-routing or "decorative" ways for sidepaths.
Maybe splitting routing tags ("how it connects") from rendering ("how it looks") has merit.



I've always considered OSM to be two maps - a geographic and a routing. While an underlying routing line performs the routing function, an area (highway residential) covers the actual reality. The joint between the two can be a bit rough though. Having recently discovered area highway footway - I'm filling in pavements/sidewalks locally now a bit as well. 

--
Mike.
@millomweb - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via the area's premier website - 

currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sidewalks

lsces
In reply to this post by Pmailkeey .
On 25/04/15 17:22, pmailkeey . wrote:
> First point is the definition of sidewalk as such they should never be
> mapped as separate routes but tags for such added to the highway. If
> there is no direct access from the footway to the carriageway, it is not
> a sidewalk.

The bottom line is that this only applied while are mapping was only at
a macro level. There has been a discussion about an import of building
details in New Zealand and when you look at the underlying detail it is
substantial micro mapping. The imagery that goes with it provides a VERY
high level of detail, and when I first looked at it I though that the
road outlines looked nice, however what I was seeing was all of the
footpath detail! Now if all of the buildings are displayed on the map,
why would one not map the footpath elements. In this case there would
seem to be grass verges isolating the footpath from the actual roadway
so technically 'no direct access' ;)

At a lower scale, one only has space to display a single line with tags.
additional detail such as the actual shape of the road, and additional
details such as verges, footpaths and the like has to be consolidated
onto the single way. At high resolution we see the buildings, footpaths
and grass areas ...

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sidewalks

jgpacker
This post has NOT been accepted by the mailing list yet.
In reply to this post by Roland Olbricht-3
I think this probably was discussed before, but isn't adding `highway=footway` to a sidewalk tagging for the renderer?

Can't we just add `street_name=*` instead of `name=*` to these cycleway and sidewalks?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sidewalks

Robert Kaiser
In reply to this post by Roland Olbricht-3
Roland Olbricht schrieb:
> our current pedestrian routers often don't give street names, but
> instead only instructions like "look for the line on the map".
> To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately
> mapped footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name.

The only correct way to put that into a clean DB model would be to
create a relation that has the name on it *once* and has all pieces as
members to which the name applies, including all pieces of street,
sidewalk, etc.
Now that is considered impractical by most people due to the editing
strain (we know how likely people already mess up relations right now).

Also, note that what you propose needs actual change of the current
renderers as they do not at this time ignore the multiple names but
instead make maps look really ugly (well, most separately mapped
sidewalks make the map look ugly in current renderers).

KaiRo



_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sidewalks

Robert Kaiser
In reply to this post by Pmailkeey .
pmailkeey . schrieb:
> I've always considered OSM to be two maps - a geographic and a routing.

And actually, when you look deeper, both is wrong. It's first and
foremost a database of geographic information, out of which both a map
(of various styles) and a routing graph can be constructed - and
probably even more than that.

KaiRo



_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sidewalks

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Robert Kaiser

2015-04-27 16:43 GMT+02:00 Robert Kaiser <[hidden email]>:
The only correct way to put that into a clean DB model would be to create a relation that has the name on it *once* and has all pieces as members to which the name applies, including all pieces of street, sidewalk, etc.


there is a kind of informal guideline that states you shouldn't use relations for things that can be expressed with a tag (e.g. relations like all streets of type x in a country b should be omitted because you don't gain anything more than is already in the db). Redundancy (like repeating the name on the parts) is more stable than a relation (also because relations are not handled very well by some editing programs, and the concept seems more complex for new mappers than simple tags are). OSM is likely not a "clean DB model" in your sense, at least it prefers redundancy and transparency over complexity and formal simplicity.

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sidewalks

Peter Mead
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

there is a kind of informal guideline that states you shouldn't use relations for things that can be expressed with a tag (e.g. relations like all streets of type x in a country b should be omitted because you don't gain anything more than is already in the db). Redundancy (like repeating the name on the parts) is more stable than a relation (also because relations are not handled very well by some editing programs, and the concept seems more complex for new mappers than simple tags are). OSM is likely not a "clean DB model" in your sense, at least it prefers redundancy and transparency over complexity and formal simplicity.

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


I think the name tag should stay on the street way(s) but you can still use a relation to group all the pieces of street, sidewalk, etc. together.

The street or associatedStreet relations could be used for this purpose.  The associatedStreet relation was only intended for linking buildings to roads for addressing purposes but the street relation is for linking anything to a road.  Both have been used with a role of "sidewalk" although this is (currently) undocumented.

The relations would be a convenient aid for data consumers to tie things together.  If relations are as unstable as you think then it still won't matter because the absence of a relation, or a partial relation, doesn't say anything.  It's only the presence of a relation which adds meaning.

- Peter

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk