StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
75 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Florian Lohoff-2

Hi,
i am seeing a growing number of changesets setting foot=yes
on all kinds of roads e.g. residential

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403719315

Commit message is:

"Add whether roads are accessible for pedestrians"

All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
what this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to
all roads.

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away

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

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 14. Feb 2019, at 10:26, Florian Lohoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
> what this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to
> all roads.


I agree the default is accessibility for everyone on non-motorroad roads. There might be residential roads with private access (in the occasions I met where access was private I was tending towards service, although with general public access I would have called them residentials).

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

Re: StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Wiklund Johan
I think that apps adding redundant tags to cover for a tiny number of special cases is going to cause more problems than it solves (i.e. users misinterpreting the question and adding "private" access to all kinds of roads). StreetBloat instead of StreetComplete :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: torsdag 14. februar 2019 10.36
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential



sent from a phone

> On 14. Feb 2019, at 10:26, Florian Lohoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled what
> this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to all roads.


I agree the default is accessibility for everyone on non-motorroad roads. There might be residential roads with private access (in the occasions I met where access was private I was tending towards service, although with general public access I would have called them residentials).

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

Re: StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Tobias Zwick
In reply to this post by Florian Lohoff-2
Yes, there is a new quest in v10, which tags foot=yes/no. It is no
problem to make changes on it, but let me first provide some information
on it first, so we have a common basis to discuss:

For any street that has been tagged as having no sidewalk, the
StreetComplete asks the surveyor:

"Is this street accessible for pedestrians here?

This street was tagged as having no sidewalk on either side. So, the
street is only accessible on foot if people may walk on the street
itself or there is enough space to walk beside it."

When the surveyor answers "yes", foot=yes is tagged.

The rationale behind collecting this information is, that if a street is
explicitly surveyed as having no sidewalk, it is no longer implicated
that naturally the street is accessible on foot (foot=yes). Roads
explicitly signed as motorroads are not the only roads that are not
accessible on foot.

And this is an important information for pedestrian routers and maybe a
useful information for car routers (because they might want to prefer
routes without the sidewalk=no + foot=yes combination).

Tobias

On 14/02/2019 10:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:

>
> Hi,
> i am seeing a growing number of changesets setting foot=yes
> on all kinds of roads e.g. residential
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403719315
>
> Commit message is:
>
> "Add whether roads are accessible for pedestrians"
>
> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
> what this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to
> all roads.
>
> Flo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Tobias Zwick
With this information given, the question is, whether

  highway=residential + sidewalk=no

implies a

  foot=yes

. And with implies, I mean, that it is considered *duplicate
information* if this is tagged. Note that This is different to an
unspecified information which can with relative certainty be assumed (by
data consumers) to be X. ( See also
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/StreetComplete/FAQ#Why_does_StreetComplete_often_tag_the_absence_of_features.3F)

I am unsure about this myself, it's certainly not mentioned in the wiki,
but that doesn't have to mean anything.

What do you think?

Tobias

On 14/02/2019 14:25, Tobias Zwick wrote:

> Yes, there is a new quest in v10, which tags foot=yes/no. It is no
> problem to make changes on it, but let me first provide some information
> on it first, so we have a common basis to discuss:
>
> For any street that has been tagged as having no sidewalk, the
> StreetComplete asks the surveyor:
>
> "Is this street accessible for pedestrians here?
>
> This street was tagged as having no sidewalk on either side. So, the
> street is only accessible on foot if people may walk on the street
> itself or there is enough space to walk beside it."
>
> When the surveyor answers "yes", foot=yes is tagged.
>
> The rationale behind collecting this information is, that if a street is
> explicitly surveyed as having no sidewalk, it is no longer implicated
> that naturally the street is accessible on foot (foot=yes). Roads
> explicitly signed as motorroads are not the only roads that are not
> accessible on foot.
>
> And this is an important information for pedestrian routers and maybe a
> useful information for car routers (because they might want to prefer
> routes without the sidewalk=no + foot=yes combination).
>
> Tobias
>
> On 14/02/2019 10:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> i am seeing a growing number of changesets setting foot=yes
>> on all kinds of roads e.g. residential
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403719315
>>
>> Commit message is:
>>
>> "Add whether roads are accessible for pedestrians"
>>
>> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
>> what this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to
>> all roads.
>>
>> Flo
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Tobias Zwick
In reply to this post by Wiklund Johan
I don't take dismissive and generalizing statements on a project I have
been putting 3+ years of lifeblood into, invest much of my free time in
and offer as open source for the betterment of OSM, lightly.

If you have a concrete constructive suggestion to make, do it,
otherwise, save your breath.

Tobias

On 14/02/2019 11:45, Wiklund Johan wrote:

> I think that apps adding redundant tags to cover for a tiny number of special cases is going to cause more problems than it solves (i.e. users misinterpreting the question and adding "private" access to all kinds of roads). StreetBloat instead of StreetComplete :)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: torsdag 14. februar 2019 10.36
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 14. Feb 2019, at 10:26, Florian Lohoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled what
>> this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to all roads.
>
>
> I agree the default is accessibility for everyone on non-motorroad roads. There might be residential roads with private access (in the occasions I met where access was private I was tending towards service, although with general public access I would have called them residentials).
>
> Cheers, Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Jarek Piórkowski
In reply to this post by Tobias Zwick
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 08:42, Tobias Zwick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> What do you think?

Hello,

In my experience in Canada I would indeed expect all (or basically
all) highway=residential to be (legally) accessible to pedestrians,
the question would be more about comfort or safety. I don't know if
tagging foot=yes is right tag to indicate "would you walk on this
road", though I'm struggling to come up with a better alternative at
the moment.

Are there any locations where a sizeable proportion of
highway=residential is not actually legally accessible to pedestrians?
Certainly there'll be exceptions, but around here it's signed
explicitly and done for reasons like heavy machinery operating along
the road or only connecting to a motorway.

How about only setting foot=no when the user specifies that this bit
of highway=residential + sidewalk=no is _not_ accessible to
pedestrians, and leaving the positive answer blank untagged? Though I
guess that doesn't work for removing the way from StreetComplete's
questions.

--Jarek

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

Re: StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

voschix
In reply to this post by Tobias Zwick
... and just to make this even trickier:
The access tag is (in most cases) about legal access, and not about is-it-a-good-idea-to-route-a-pedestrian-along-this-road access.
That has to be underlined. In my part of the world most roads, even with a lot of traffic and without sidewalk are legally open to pedestrians, but if they take the road their chance of survival is low.
Add to the mix that, in my part of the world, almost all roads have no sidewalk tag nor separate parallel footways, even if these are present.
I don't think it's a good idea to add foot=yes to underline what is already the default. It would make more sense to tag foot=use_sidepath for those cases where there is a sidewalk and pedestrians a legally required to use it, and use, obviously, foot=no for those cases where there it is against the law to walk on the street (for roads where the default is foot=yes)


On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 14:49, Tobias Zwick <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don't take dismissive and generalizing statements on a project I have
been putting 3+ years of lifeblood into, invest much of my free time in
and offer as open source for the betterment of OSM, lightly.

If you have a concrete constructive suggestion to make, do it,
otherwise, save your breath.

Tobias

On 14/02/2019 11:45, Wiklund Johan wrote:
> I think that apps adding redundant tags to cover for a tiny number of special cases is going to cause more problems than it solves (i.e. users misinterpreting the question and adding "private" access to all kinds of roads). StreetBloat instead of StreetComplete :)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: torsdag 14. februar 2019 10.36
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 14. Feb 2019, at 10:26, Florian Lohoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled what
>> this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to all roads.
>
>
> I agree the default is accessibility for everyone on non-motorroad roads. There might be residential roads with private access (in the occasions I met where access was private I was tending towards service, although with general public access I would have called them residentials).
>
> Cheers, Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

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

Re: StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Tobias Zwick
Wrong thread?

Anyway, the quest in StreetComplete only asks for foot=yes/no if the
road is tagged with sidewalk=no.

On 14/02/2019 15:44, Volker Schmidt wrote:

> ... and just to make this even trickier:
> The access tag is (in most cases) about legal access, and not about
> is-it-a-good-idea-to-route-a-pedestrian-along-this-road access.
> That has to be underlined. In my part of the world most roads, even with
> a lot of traffic and without sidewalk are legally open to pedestrians,
> but if they take the road their chance of survival is low.
> Add to the mix that, in my part of the world, almost all roads have no
> sidewalk tag nor separate parallel footways, even if these are present.
> I don't think it's a good idea to add foot=yes to underline what is
> already the default. It would make more sense to tag foot=use_sidepath
> for those cases where there is a sidewalk _and_ pedestrians a legally
> required to use it, and use, obviously, foot=no for those cases where
> there it is against the law to walk on the street (for roads where the
> default is foot=yes)
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 14:49, Tobias Zwick <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     I don't take dismissive and generalizing statements on a project I have
>     been putting 3+ years of lifeblood into, invest much of my free time in
>     and offer as open source for the betterment of OSM, lightly.
>
>     If you have a concrete constructive suggestion to make, do it,
>     otherwise, save your breath.
>
>     Tobias
>
>     On 14/02/2019 11:45, Wiklund Johan wrote:
>     > I think that apps adding redundant tags to cover for a tiny number
>     of special cases is going to cause more problems than it solves
>     (i.e. users misinterpreting the question and adding "private" access
>     to all kinds of roads). StreetBloat instead of StreetComplete :)
>     >
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>]
>     > Sent: torsdag 14. februar 2019 10.36
>     > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>     > Subject: Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > sent from a phone
>     >
>     >> On 14. Feb 2019, at 10:26, Florian Lohoff <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     >>
>     >> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
>     what
>     >> this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to all roads.
>     >
>     >
>     > I agree the default is accessibility for everyone on non-motorroad
>     roads. There might be residential roads with private access (in the
>     occasions I met where access was private I was tending towards
>     service, although with general public access I would have called
>     them residentials).
>     >
>     > Cheers, Martin
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Tagging mailing list
>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Tagging mailing list
>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>     >
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

ebel
In reply to this post by Florian Lohoff-2
I can't find any issue on Github for this feature.

But in Ireland (& I think UK), all public roads except motorways, are
foot=yes. Legally you can walk on the road, even if there is not
footpath ("sidewalk"). I think this adds bloat and quests which will
annoy mappers.

On 14/02/2019 10:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:

>
> Hi,
> i am seeing a growing number of changesets setting foot=yes
> on all kinds of roads e.g. residential
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403719315
>
> Commit message is:
>
> "Add whether roads are accessible for pedestrians"
>
> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
> what this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to
> all roads.
>
> Flo


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

Re: StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Philip Barnes


On 14 February 2019 15:05:56 GMT, Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>I can't find any issue on Github for this feature.
>
>But in Ireland (& I think UK), all public roads except motorways, are
>foot=yes. Legally you can walk on the road, even if there is not
>footpath ("sidewalk"). I think this adds bloat and quests which will
>annoy mappers.

You are correct Rory, in the UK you can normally walk (or cycle) on all non motorways. There are a few exceptions but these will be trunk, never ever residential, and will be associated with underpasses or bridges.

Would anyone live somewhere you are legally not allowed to walk to your house?

Phil (trigpoint)




>
>On 14/02/2019 10:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> i am seeing a growing number of changesets setting foot=yes
>> on all kinds of roads e.g. residential
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403719315
>>
>> Commit message is:
>>
>> "Add whether roads are accessible for pedestrians"
>>
>> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
>> what this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to
>> all roads.
>>
>> Flo
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tagging mailing list
>[hidden email]
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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

Re: StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Florian Lohoff-2
In reply to this post by Tobias Zwick
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 04:00:24PM +0100, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> Wrong thread?
>
> Anyway, the quest in StreetComplete only asks for foot=yes/no if the
> road is tagged with sidewalk=no.

Sidewalk is a physical issue - foot=* is a legal issue.

It is perfectly normal for streets in Germany to have no sidewalk
(Probably around 80% of road distances dont have sidewalks)

Still 99% of roads (Except motorway) are legal to be walked.

And we have that as defaults - motorway/trunk -> foot=no - others
are by default foot=yes

A sidewalk=no does not change any of these assumptions.

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away

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

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Tobias Zwick
In reply to this post by Philip Barnes
apart from underpasses, bridges also intersections and similar
constructs. They need not be trunk/motorroad.

For example many road segments at Deichtorplatz and inner lanes of
Willi-Brandt-Straße in Hamburg:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/53.54762/10.00345

On 14/02/2019 17:03, Philip Barnes wrote:

>
>
> On 14 February 2019 15:05:56 GMT, Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I can't find any issue on Github for this feature.
>>
>> But in Ireland (& I think UK), all public roads except motorways, are
>> foot=yes. Legally you can walk on the road, even if there is not
>> footpath ("sidewalk"). I think this adds bloat and quests which will
>> annoy mappers.
>
> You are correct Rory, in the UK you can normally walk (or cycle) on all non motorways. There are a few exceptions but these will be trunk, never ever residential, and will be associated with underpasses or bridges.
>
> Would anyone live somewhere you are legally not allowed to walk to your house?
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On 14/02/2019 10:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> i am seeing a growing number of changesets setting foot=yes
>>> on all kinds of roads e.g. residential
>>>
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403719315
>>>
>>> Commit message is:
>>>
>>> "Add whether roads are accessible for pedestrians"
>>>
>>> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
>>> what this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to
>>> all roads.
>>>
>>> Flo
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Jan S
In reply to this post by Tobias Zwick


>The rationale behind collecting this information is, that if a street
>is
>explicitly surveyed as having no sidewalk, it is no longer implicated
>that naturally the street is accessible on foot (foot=yes). Roads
>explicitly signed as motorroads are not the only roads that are not
>accessible on foot.
>
>And this is an important information for pedestrian routers and maybe a
>useful information for car routers (because they might want to prefer
>routes without the sidewalk=no + foot=yes

First, thanks for all the effort put into "StreetComplete". I really like the app and frequently use it.

Concerning the new task, I think the rationale to explicitly map highways that are actually accessible to pedestrians is laudable. But the approach chosen here may be inaccurate as it mixes the legal and the physical realities. The legal situation is already represented by the default OSM setting, considering all highways as "foot=yes" except some like motorways or those explicitly marked as "foot=no".

Although walking on a street may be allowed, it may however be unpleasant or even unsafe to really do so. But this physical reality should, IMHO, be reflected in a separate (afaik still non-existant) tag, like "walkable=1-3" or so. This could then be taken into account by routers when calculating alternative routes between to points. But that certainly goes beyond this thread.

I would, in consequence, support the deactivation of the task in its current form.

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

Re: StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by ebel


sent from a phone

> On 14. Feb 2019, at 16:05, Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> But in Ireland (& I think UK), all public roads except motorways, are foot=yes. Legally you can walk on the road, even if there is not footpath ("sidewalk"). I think this adds bloat and quests which will annoy mappers.


Germany and Italy as well (motorroads and motorways excluded).
Sooner or later we might add sidewalk=no tags to many roads in the countryside (maybe, so long I wasn’t actually doing it). There may be a fundamental conflict of the StreetComplete project (which encourages to verify everything) and our usually sloppy way of assuming defaults. Problem is with lots of “boring” tags on every object, we’ll loose focus/overview and it might reduce data quality rather than augmenting it. I acknowledge some compromise is already offered by asking only for roads without sidewalks, but it is still too many, if it were only in built-up areas it would be probably acceptable (for Italy or Germany).

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

Re: StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Tobias Zwick
In reply to this post by Jan S
This is, by the way, a bit of a different topic now, because the thread
was originally about tagging foot=yes on residential, not whether
foot=yes/no is limited to a *legal* access restriction. Anyway:

I doubt access restrictions are used that way in reality.

The absence of keys like the mentioned key walkable(, cycleable,
motorcarable, hgvable etc.) is a clear sign for that, because there are
enough situations where the situation on the ground is clear for a
surveyor but there is no official sign.
Otherwise, the access restriction information would be hardly useful.

There are many different road traffic legislations around the world and
(as I read many of them) I can tell you that there is a lot of variance
in how precisely and how close to reality they are written. And also,
how much the road authority feels the need to sign more or less obvious
road situations.

In some legislations, there is no notion of motorways and motorroads,
but roads like this may nevertheless exist. Does that mean that no roads
may be tagged like this in OSM? No. Does it mean that foot=yes is
implicitly assumed on them? Well, no, because even if that would be the
official legal situation, that would be silly, and I am sure no
policeman with common-sense would listen to this kind of bean counting.

Same with Germany/UK. Some posters mentioned, that on any road without a
sidewalk and without an explicit access restriction for pedestrians,
pedestrians are allowed. Okay, that is new to me, but if this is true,
then this is also a case where the law (massively) diverges from the
actual reality on the ground. I am sure the police would find something
else to charge you with when you take a walk on for example this busy
intersection https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188015324 , like,
hindrance of traffic. Note that the road authority also did not bother
to put any signs there [*]
(Google Streetview:
https://www.google.de/maps/@53.5483485,10.0055799,3a,73y,176.82h,81.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBSZx5A6MNVRKd0qN6MIanQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
)

Incidentally, that section is also tagged with foot=no.

I have no statistics up my sleeve, but I firmly believe that this is no
exception, because, common sense.

Let's be pragmatic: We don't tag things just because and also do not
live in clouds. So, why do we tag access restrictions at all? -
To be of use for routing and other use cases where it is relevant
whether something is accessible or not, simple as that.
The reason for it being (not) accessible is secondary, because this
information is mostly used for verifiability, but not for the routing
itself. It is the source of the information, like maxspeed:source=sign.

So, to come back to StreetComplete, the app could of course ask the user
instead: "Is this street *legally* accessible for pedestrians here?".
But, I hope I made clear that this is beside the point and asking more
generally is both more concise and meaningful. A surveyor that is
on-site is in the best position judge the situation according to common
sense if no sign is present and if he cannot (i.e. the answer would be
"prrooobably yes, it's not forbidden at least, but perhaps a bit
dangerous"), then he can still leave a note in which he explains the
situation and attaches some photos to it.

Tobias

[*] And exactly these situations were the ones I had in mind when
designing the discussed quest for StreetComplete, by the way.

On 14/02/2019 18:16, JS wrote:

>
>
>> The rationale behind collecting this information is, that if a street
>> is
>> explicitly surveyed as having no sidewalk, it is no longer implicated
>> that naturally the street is accessible on foot (foot=yes). Roads
>> explicitly signed as motorroads are not the only roads that are not
>> accessible on foot.
>>
>> And this is an important information for pedestrian routers and maybe a
>> useful information for car routers (because they might want to prefer
>> routes without the sidewalk=no + foot=yes
>
> First, thanks for all the effort put into "StreetComplete". I really like the app and frequently use it.
>
> Concerning the new task, I think the rationale to explicitly map highways that are actually accessible to pedestrians is laudable. But the approach chosen here may be inaccurate as it mixes the legal and the physical realities. The legal situation is already represented by the default OSM setting, considering all highways as "foot=yes" except some like motorways or those explicitly marked as "foot=no".
>
> Although walking on a street may be allowed, it may however be unpleasant or even unsafe to really do so. But this physical reality should, IMHO, be reflected in a separate (afaik still non-existant) tag, like "walkable=1-3" or so. This could then be taken into account by routers when calculating alternative routes between to points. But that certainly goes beyond this thread.
>
> I would, in consequence, support the deactivation of the task in its current form.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Tobias Zwick
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
I agree that it would make sense to not ask whether a road has a
sidewalk outside of built-up areas because in most cases, it will have
no sidewalks.

Regrettably, whether a road is in a built-up area or outside is not an
information that is recorded in OSM.

Tobias

On 14/02/2019 18:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 14. Feb 2019, at 16:05, Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> But in Ireland (& I think UK), all public roads except motorways, are foot=yes. Legally you can walk on the road, even if there is not footpath ("sidewalk"). I think this adds bloat and quests which will annoy mappers.
>
>
> Germany and Italy as well (motorroads and motorways excluded).
> Sooner or later we might add sidewalk=no tags to many roads in the countryside (maybe, so long I wasn’t actually doing it). There may be a fundamental conflict of the StreetComplete project (which encourages to verify everything) and our usually sloppy way of assuming defaults. Problem is with lots of “boring” tags on every object, we’ll loose focus/overview and it might reduce data quality rather than augmenting it. I acknowledge some compromise is already offered by asking only for roads without sidewalks, but it is still too many, if it were only in built-up areas it would be probably acceptable (for Italy or Germany).
>
> Cheers, Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Jarek Piórkowski
In reply to this post by Tobias Zwick
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 13:51, Tobias Zwick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I doubt access restrictions are used that way in reality.
> The absence of keys like the mentioned key walkable(, cycleable,
> motorcarable, hgvable etc.) is a clear sign for that, because there are
> enough situations where the situation on the ground is clear for a
> surveyor but there is no official sign.

Personally, I have used foot=no to tag ways that are clearly not
walkable without confirming the exact legal position, and don't really
have a problem with that.

But that feels different from tagging foot=yes. Access tags are always
a general rule - for example a privileged vehicle would be able to
enter a highway with access=no, and workers on foot might be able to
work on a motorway or within an intersection. foot=yes to me means
that I expect to be able to pass on foot, unless the path is closed
for repairs or blocked off by police or whatever - but I have that
expectation anyway on any highway=residential that is not tagged with
foot=no.

> I am sure the police would find something
> else to charge you with when you take a walk on for example this busy
> intersection https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188015324 , like,
> hindrance of traffic. Note that the road authority also did not bother
> to put any signs there [*]
> ...
> Let's be pragmatic: We don't tag things just because and also do not
> live in clouds. So, why do we tag access restrictions at all? -
> To be of use for routing and other use cases where it is relevant
> whether something is accessible or not, simple as that.

The example that started off the thread is highway=residential. The
Deichtorplatz example you gave is highway=secondary, and the bits of
highway=residential in the junction would not affect pedestrian
routing on their own because they only connect to highway=secondary. I
would expect majority of bridges, underpasses, intersections, and
other such foot=no highways to be higher-class than residential.
Which highway classes does the StreetComplete query ask about?
And does it make sense to ask about highway=residential -- and I mean
highway=residential as it is tagged, not as it is defined by laws or
lack thereof?

Second. To me, the question is not whether there exists a
highway=residential + sidewalk=no with foot=no, but rather do enough
of them exist to warrant asking this about every one of them, and
tagging foot=yes on every other one? Especially considering that
foot=yes is taken to be the default anyway.

--Jarek

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

Re: StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Mark Wagner
In reply to this post by ebel

In the United States, the rules aren't quite as permissive (for
example, authorities are allowed to forbid foot traffic), but in
practice, I'm not aware of a single case where a residential street
actually prohibits foot traffic.  (I'm aware of one near me that's
*tagged* as such, but I think it's a double tagging error: it's not a
residential street, and the user who tagged it misinterpreted a "don't
cross" sign at the intersection as "foot traffic prohibited".)

If you want to make this useful in the US, limit it to the situations
where foot traffic is likely to be prohibited: things like bridges,
tunnels, cuttings, and embankments.

--
Mark

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 16:05:56 +0100
Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I can't find any issue on Github for this feature.
>
> But in Ireland (& I think UK), all public roads except motorways, are
> foot=yes. Legally you can walk on the road, even if there is not
> footpath ("sidewalk"). I think this adds bloat and quests which will
> annoy mappers.
>
> On 14/02/2019 10:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > i am seeing a growing number of changesets setting foot=yes
> > on all kinds of roads e.g. residential
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403719315
> >
> > Commit message is:
> >
> > "Add whether roads are accessible for pedestrians"
> >
> > All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
> > what this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to
> > all roads.
> >
> > Flo  
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

Re: StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Tobias Zwick
In reply to this post by Florian Lohoff-2
Alright, I will change it so that the question whether a road is
accessible for pedestrians is never asked for residential roads (and
living streets, service roads, pedestrians roads) for v10.1

Tobias

On 14/02/2019 10:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:

>
> Hi,
> i am seeing a growing number of changesets setting foot=yes
> on all kinds of roads e.g. residential
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403719315
>
> Commit message is:
>
> "Add whether roads are accessible for pedestrians"
>
> All residentials are accessible to pedestrians so i a bit puzzled
> what this challenge is good for. It just adds redundant tags to
> all roads.
>
> Flo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
1234