sidewalks

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

sidewalks

Jez Nicholson
Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn which i'm not overly impressed with....or am I being a Luddite?

Regards,
              Jez

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

Re: sidewalks

Gareth L

Sidewalks (pavements) are difficult in the compressed and crowded layouts of our towns and cities. I would love them to be more uniformly mapped though. As they rarely are mapped, where they are, they stand out and look a bit out of place.

 

What do you think it lacks? Would it be improved with the pavements on the intersecting streets shown also?

 

Gareth

 


From: Jez Nicholson <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2019 11:11:28 AM
To: Talk-GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] sidewalks
 
Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn which i'm not overly impressed with....or am I being a Luddite?

Regards,
              Jez

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

Re: sidewalks

Dan S
In reply to this post by Jez Nicholson
I noticed a "sidewalk" here too in Brighton:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684610225

I'm ambivalent. Both of these examples are pavements that are fully
adjacent (continguous) to their roads, and by default I'd prefer not
to map them separately. I guess the long one that you refer to does
sometimes rise above the road, and even has steps down at at least one
point, so perhaps worth being a separate feature?

Dan

Op za 1 jun. 2019 om 11:12 schreef Jez Nicholson <[hidden email]>:
>
> Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn which i'm not overly impressed with....or am I being a Luddite?
>
> Regards,
>               Jez
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: sidewalks

Jez Nicholson
Agree with both Gareth and Dan. It's all part of the discussion on how detailed the map goes, and possibly more relevant in countries with wider roads and obviously separate sidewalks. In the UK we always assume that a road has a pavement unless stated otherwise. I came slightly unstuck myself when walking from a guesthouse to an office in Exeter and having to drag a wheelie case along a grass verge :)

Happy for them to be added in special cases like raised pavements, but when they are exactly next to the road it doesn't really add much.

Like with the relation I was also whining about, i'm not going to go removing anything, but I did comment on the sidewalk changeset to take care.

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 11:28 AM Dan S <[hidden email]> wrote:
I noticed a "sidewalk" here too in Brighton:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684610225

I'm ambivalent. Both of these examples are pavements that are fully
adjacent (continguous) to their roads, and by default I'd prefer not
to map them separately. I guess the long one that you refer to does
sometimes rise above the road, and even has steps down at at least one
point, so perhaps worth being a separate feature?

Dan

Op za 1 jun. 2019 om 11:12 schreef Jez Nicholson <[hidden email]>:
>
> Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn which i'm not overly impressed with....or am I being a Luddite?
>
> Regards,
>               Jez
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: sidewalks

Gareth L

A surprising number of the new build housing estates around me have few pavements and are not very contiguous. There’s often even a space where they could lay the asphalt, but then it’s left as grass – before then getting sequestered as cars park over it.

I’d like to see more affirmative mapping of sidewalks. Starting with it being a suggested tag in the iD editor, and other editors.

Similar to how you can just toggle an option to add the lit, tunnel, bridge, etc. parameters for roads. Manually adding sidewalk:both/left/right=yes/no is overlooked.

Maps are so car centric, and walking directions are stuck with disclaimers along the lines of  ‘we don’t know how suitable this route is to walk, good luck!’.

I hope we can improve upon that.

 

Gareth

 

From: [hidden email]
Sent: 01 June 2019 11:39
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

 

Agree with both Gareth and Dan. It's all part of the discussion on how detailed the map goes, and possibly more relevant in countries with wider roads and obviously separate sidewalks. In the UK we always assume that a road has a pavement unless stated otherwise. I came slightly unstuck myself when walking from a guesthouse to an office in Exeter and having to drag a wheelie case along a grass verge :)

 

Happy for them to be added in special cases like raised pavements, but when they are exactly next to the road it doesn't really add much.

 

Like with the relation I was also whining about, i'm not going to go removing anything, but I did comment on the sidewalk changeset to take care.

 

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 11:28 AM Dan S <[hidden email]> wrote:

I noticed a "sidewalk" here too in Brighton:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684610225

I'm ambivalent. Both of these examples are pavements that are fully
adjacent (continguous) to their roads, and by default I'd prefer not
to map them separately. I guess the long one that you refer to does
sometimes rise above the road, and even has steps down at at least one
point, so perhaps worth being a separate feature?

Dan

Op za 1 jun. 2019 om 11:12 schreef Jez Nicholson <[hidden email]>:
>
> Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn which i'm not overly impressed with....or am I being a Luddite?
>
> Regards,
>               Jez
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

 


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

Re: sidewalks

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by Jez Nicholson
On 01/06/2019 11:11, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn which i'm not overly impressed
> with....or am I being a Luddite?
>
>
I personally wouldn't map sidewalks in a dense UK city like that (though
some people do, with the intention of micromapping all the dropped kerbs
etc.).  It's perhaps worth mentioning that at least some of the sidewalk
edits there are by someone who has tended to contribute well-meaning but
not entirely accurate edits from afar - it took me lots of additional
surveys of Sutton in Ashfield* to verify that many of their previous
"roads" simply weren't.

At first glance quite a lot of joins seem to be missing, and some shops
were located between the sidewalk and the road (which you've just
fixed).  Maybe if you're going to add a certain level of detail, you
can't just ignore everything else on the map, although it's pretty
common to do updates in stages - when mapping rural areas I'll often do
streams first (armchair), then roads and paths (survey) then extra
detail such as field boundaries, gates, stiles etc. (a mix of both).

Best Regards,

Andy

* you could therefore perhaps describe it as "successful armchair
mapping" :)


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

Re: sidewalks

ewmjc
In reply to this post by Dan S
I too was very anti at first. Reykavik was the first time I saw it on a
systematic basis, and I thought it made a map I did aesthetically
dreadful. But a small tweak, rendering sidewalk-tagged footways as a
very unobtrusive narrow line fixed that.

I now map them zealously for three reasons:

1) I think it is the only way we can, (and IMHO should), seriously
support wheelchair routing.

2) It is really useful for creating "safe" routes, especially for
children. As an example, a normal footway that "ends" at a busy main
road. Does it really mean that you have to walk along the road itself or
attempt to cross right there? Or, does it mean that in reality it ends
at a nice pavement/sidewalk that takes you to a formal crossing further
down? (And for serious routing it is also worth mapping and tagging
footway=crossing as well).

3) Well, not so important but it really p***s me off wasting time OSM
walking to a huge complex road interchange only to find that the only
way across is on the other side and have back-track to some footbridge
or other. Here is a work-in-progress example in Melbourne:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-37.82641/144.94721 There is
actually only one way to get across safely north-south if on bicycle and
possibly for foot also. Addition of the "sidewalk" network would be very
helpful.

Mike

On 2019-06-01 12:27, Dan S wrote:

> I noticed a "sidewalk" here too in Brighton:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684610225
>
> I'm ambivalent. Both of these examples are pavements that are fully
> adjacent (continguous) to their roads, and by default I'd prefer not
> to map them separately. I guess the long one that you refer to does
> sometimes rise above the road, and even has steps down at at least one
> point, so perhaps worth being a separate feature?
>
> Dan
>
> Op za 1 jun. 2019 om 11:12 schreef Jez Nicholson <[hidden email]>:
>> Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn which i'm not overly impressed with....or am I being a Luddite?
>>
>> Regards,
>>                Jez
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: sidewalks

ewmjc
In reply to this post by Andy Townsend
On 2019-06-01 13:26, Andy Townsend wrote:

> On 01/06/2019 11:11, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>> Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk
>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn which i'm not overly impressed
>> with....or am I being a Luddite?
>>
>>
> I personally wouldn't map sidewalks in a dense UK city like that
> (though some people do, with the intention of micromapping all the
> dropped kerbs etc.).  It's perhaps worth mentioning that at least some
> of the sidewalk edits there are by someone who has tended to
> contribute well-meaning but not entirely accurate edits from afar - it
> took me lots of additional surveys of Sutton in Ashfield* to verify
> that many of their previous "roads" simply weren't.
>
> At first glance quite a lot of joins seem to be missing, and some
> shops were located between the sidewalk and the road (which you've
> just fixed).  Maybe if you're going to add a certain level of detail,
> you can't just ignore everything else on the map, although it's pretty
> common to do updates in stages - when mapping rural areas I'll often
> do streams first (armchair), then roads and paths (survey) then extra
> detail such as field boundaries, gates, stiles etc. (a mix of both).
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
> * you could therefore perhaps describe it as "successful armchair
> mapping" :)

I certainly concur that sidewalk mapping is not for the armchair. I
tried, then going out to "just verify" and found that I was hopelessly
inaccurate. It defeats the point, to get a highly accurate localised
network for folks who might depend on it.

Mike


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

Re: sidewalks

Andy Townsend
On 01/06/2019 13:55, Michael Collinson wrote:
>
> ... I tried, then going out to "just verify" and found that I was
> hopelessly inaccurate. It defeats the point, to get a highly accurate
> localised network for folks who might depend on it.
>
>
I did something similar on the dev server a while back here:

https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/54.0167/-1.0486

(turn the data layer on to see it).  What surprised me was the things
that I hadn't expected beforehand to be important (angles through gates
being an obvious one) that actually were.

Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: sidewalks

sk53.osm
I recently extended some already mapped pavements in N. Cambridge. I'm not really a fan of the current approach because I don't think it works particularly well, and I'm not aware of any good routers using this type of data for wheelchairs.

The problems I see (and I've said this before):
  • The scope for missing interconnections is trebled.
  • It's more or less worthless unless done systematically (places like university & hospital campuses are viable from this viewpoint.
  • In Britain, at least, it requires introduction of many arbitrary crossing points to allow any kind of sensible pedestrian routing (i.e., not well-supported by on-the-ground features such as dropped kerbs & tactile paving). You can see the ones I felt it necessary to introduce around Roseford Road & Perse Way. Note that many crossings, e.g., at the Harris Way/Perse Way intersection are not complete.
  • It breaks existing applications. The reason why I noticed the issue in North Cambridge is that the Traveline South East app started giving me unfeasibly long times to walk to a bus stop. It turned out that it routed me all the way along a pavement to Histon Road & then back along Histon Road adding a good 500 m to the journey. This was because the original mapping just stopped without connecting the end of the pavement to anything.
  • I'm not completely convinced that wheelchair users, blind people etc can put the same degree of trust in this type of data as the ordinary pedestrian can for current pedestrian routing. My feeling is that the information really needs to be tailored to the user: there's a massive difference between how a powered wheelchair or mobility scooter and a manual/pushed wheelchair can cope with non-flush kerbs for instance.
  • I'm not sure if anyone has done any work to show how separately mapped sidewalks can be merged with the main highway to provide generalised pedestrian routing such as we have now.
  • Probably to be useful in the UK, all driveways should be mapped too (as in Andy's dev server example): in my experience of pushing my late mother around in a wheelchair driveways are often much better than many shoddy dropped kerb installations.
  • Naming of sidewalks can create problems (although it can also resolve them in cases where the two sides of a street have different names).
  • It's a pig to survey well in places where dropped kerbs have not been installed systematically (as in my Cambridge example).
On the plus side:
  • It allows more relevant details of pavements to be tagged (width, surface etc).
  • The current sidewalk model is probably much more appropriate in countries with specific legislation preventing pedestrians crossing roads at any other than designated crossing points (jay walking).
  • It's always been good publicity for OSM: even if actual real usage is limited.
  • Inevitably OSM will move in the direction of capturing more information & this is just one example.
I guess I would have preferred : sidewalks to be mapped with a key other than highway (something analogous to area:highway); more research to be done on ways to post-process the data (in both directions from highway=footway,footway=sidewalk and from sidewalk=*); and good references for actual user experience of wheelchair routing using separately mapped sidewalks. One way to have our cake & eat it would be to use both sidewalk= and have separately mapped sidewalks & allow the consumer to choose which to use, although the current sidewalk=separate does not say if its both, left or right. Personally I think this is still reasonable in the context of one feature one element; sidewalk is an attributive property of the street and potentially difficult to derive without resorting to convoluted approaches (such as relations).

In summary the problem from my perspective is that mapping them separately can often make OSM less useful, whereas most other mapping of additional features enhances OSM incrementally. 

Jerry



On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 15:08, Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 01/06/2019 13:55, Michael Collinson wrote:
>
> ... I tried, then going out to "just verify" and found that I was
> hopelessly inaccurate. It defeats the point, to get a highly accurate
> localised network for folks who might depend on it.
>
>
I did something similar on the dev server a while back here:

https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/54.0167/-1.0486

(turn the data layer on to see it).  What surprised me was the things
that I hadn't expected beforehand to be important (angles through gates
being an obvious one) that actually were.

Best Regards,

Andy




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

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

Re: sidewalks

Andrew Hain
I am inclined to agree with this though I would distinguish between non-traversable paths that can be mapped with their connections and continuously connected traversable ones that should just have their existence marked on their ways.

--
Andrew

From: SK53 <[hidden email]>
Sent: 02 June 2019 14:10
To: Andy Townsend
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] sidewalks
 
I recently extended some already mapped pavements in N. Cambridge. I'm not really a fan of the current approach because I don't think it works particularly well, and I'm not aware of any good routers using this type of data for wheelchairs.

The problems I see (and I've said this before):
  • The scope for missing interconnections is trebled.
  • It's more or less worthless unless done systematically (places like university & hospital campuses are viable from this viewpoint.
  • In Britain, at least, it requires introduction of many arbitrary crossing points to allow any kind of sensible pedestrian routing (i.e., not well-supported by on-the-ground features such as dropped kerbs & tactile paving). You can see the ones I felt it necessary to introduce around Roseford Road & Perse Way. Note that many crossings, e.g., at the Harris Way/Perse Way intersection are not complete.
  • It breaks existing applications. The reason why I noticed the issue in North Cambridge is that the Traveline South East app started giving me unfeasibly long times to walk to a bus stop. It turned out that it routed me all the way along a pavement to Histon Road & then back along Histon Road adding a good 500 m to the journey. This was because the original mapping just stopped without connecting the end of the pavement to anything.
  • I'm not completely convinced that wheelchair users, blind people etc can put the same degree of trust in this type of data as the ordinary pedestrian can for current pedestrian routing. My feeling is that the information really needs to be tailored to the user: there's a massive difference between how a powered wheelchair or mobility scooter and a manual/pushed wheelchair can cope with non-flush kerbs for instance.
  • I'm not sure if anyone has done any work to show how separately mapped sidewalks can be merged with the main highway to provide generalised pedestrian routing such as we have now.
  • Probably to be useful in the UK, all driveways should be mapped too (as in Andy's dev server example): in my experience of pushing my late mother around in a wheelchair driveways are often much better than many shoddy dropped kerb installations.
  • Naming of sidewalks can create problems (although it can also resolve them in cases where the two sides of a street have different names).
  • It's a pig to survey well in places where dropped kerbs have not been installed systematically (as in my Cambridge example).
On the plus side:
  • It allows more relevant details of pavements to be tagged (width, surface etc).
  • The current sidewalk model is probably much more appropriate in countries with specific legislation preventing pedestrians crossing roads at any other than designated crossing points (jay walking).
  • It's always been good publicity for OSM: even if actual real usage is limited.
  • Inevitably OSM will move in the direction of capturing more information & this is just one example.
I guess I would have preferred : sidewalks to be mapped with a key other than highway (something analogous to area:highway); more research to be done on ways to post-process the data (in both directions from highway=footway,footway=sidewalk and from sidewalk=*); and good references for actual user experience of wheelchair routing using separately mapped sidewalks. One way to have our cake & eat it would be to use both sidewalk= and have separately mapped sidewalks & allow the consumer to choose which to use, although the current sidewalk=separate does not say if its both, left or right. Personally I think this is still reasonable in the context of one feature one element; sidewalk is an attributive property of the street and potentially difficult to derive without resorting to convoluted approaches (such as relations).

In summary the problem from my perspective is that mapping them separately can often make OSM less useful, whereas most other mapping of additional features enhances OSM incrementally. 

Jerry



On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 15:08, Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 01/06/2019 13:55, Michael Collinson wrote:
>
> ... I tried, then going out to "just verify" and found that I was
> hopelessly inaccurate. It defeats the point, to get a highly accurate
> localised network for folks who might depend on it.
>
>
I did something similar on the dev server a while back here:

https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/54.0167/-1.0486

(turn the data layer on to see it).  What surprised me was the things
that I hadn't expected beforehand to be important (angles through gates
being an obvious one) that actually were.

Best Regards,

Andy




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

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

Re: sidewalks

Stuart Reynolds
In reply to this post by sk53.osm

On 3 Jun 2019, at 09:15, Stuart Reynolds <[hidden email]> wrote:

As Jerry says, from a routing perspective having lots of separate footpaths doesn’t help when you can just walk across the road at any given point. Boulevard-type roads with central grassed areas are very similar. If you aren’t careful you end up with a number of artificial crossing points, which is wrong.

On the flip side, though, what we also have is a significant number of roads that are currently defaulting to walking when they cannot be walked. I have had to to tweak the A500 around Stoke, for example, and there were similar problems on the A4150 around Wolverhampton Bus Station. When I find these, I don’t have the time (or local knowledge) to edit entire stretches of road, so I tend to just edit the slip roads and the mainline where I am having the immediate problem. 

From a personal point of view I would therefore rather avoid separate footpaths where they are not distinct, but at the same time we need to improve a lot of urban high speed roads that are not walkable.

Regards,
Stuart


On 2 Jun 2019, at 14:10, SK53 <[hidden email]> wrote:

I recently extended some already mapped pavements in N. Cambridge. I'm not really a fan of the current approach because I don't think it works particularly well, and I'm not aware of any good routers using this type of data for wheelchairs.

The problems I see (and I've said this before):
The scope for missing interconnections is trebled.
It's more or less worthless unless done systematically (places like university & hospital campuses are viable from this viewpoint.
In Britain, at least, it requires introduction of many arbitrary crossing points to allow any kind of sensible pedestrian routing (i.e., not well-supported by on-the-ground features such as dropped kerbs & tactile paving). You can see the ones I felt it necessary to introduce around Roseford Road & Perse Way. Note that many crossings, e.g., at the Harris Way/Perse Way intersection are not complete.
It breaks existing applications. The reason why I noticed the issue in North Cambridge is that the Traveline South East app started giving me unfeasibly long times to walk to a bus stop. It turned out that it routed me all the way along a pavement to Histon Road & then back along Histon Road adding a good 500 m to the journey. This was because the original mapping just stopped without connecting the end of the pavement to anything.
I'm not completely convinced that wheelchair users, blind people etc can put the same degree of trust in this type of data as the ordinary pedestrian can for current pedestrian routing. My feeling is that the information really needs to be tailored to the user: there's a massive difference between how a powered wheelchair or mobility scooter and a manual/pushed wheelchair can cope with non-flush kerbs for instance.
I'm not sure if anyone has done any work to show how separately mapped sidewalks can be merged with the main highway to provide generalised pedestrian routing such as we have now.
Probably to be useful in the UK, all driveways should be mapped too (as in Andy's dev server example): in my experience of pushing my late mother around in a wheelchair driveways are often much better than many shoddy dropped kerb installations.
Naming of sidewalks can create problems (although it can also resolve them in cases where the two sides of a street have different names).
It's a pig to survey well in places where dropped kerbs have not been installed systematically (as in my Cambridge example).
On the plus side:
It allows more relevant details of pavements to be tagged (width, surface etc).
The current sidewalk model is probably much more appropriate in countries with specific legislation preventing pedestrians crossing roads at any other than designated crossing points (jay walking).
It's always been good publicity for OSM: even if actual real usage is limited.
Inevitably OSM will move in the direction of capturing more information & this is just one example.
I guess I would have preferred : sidewalks to be mapped with a key other than highway (something analogous to area:highway); more research to be done on ways to post-process the data (in both directions from highway=footway,footway=sidewalk and from sidewalk=*); and good references for actual user experience of wheelchair routing using separately mapped sidewalks. One way to have our cake & eat it would be to use both sidewalk= and have separately mapped sidewalks & allow the consumer to choose which to use, although the current sidewalk=separate does not say if its both, left or right. Personally I think this is still reasonable in the context of one feature one element; sidewalk is an attributive property of the street and potentially difficult to derive without resorting to convoluted approaches (such as relations).

In summary the problem from my perspective is that mapping them separately can often make OSM less useful, whereas most other mapping of additional features enhances OSM incrementally. 

Jerry

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