Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Michael Eric Menk]

On 06/02/2010 03:03 PM, Henry Loenwind wrote:

routing:hints:motorcar:avoid=yes
routing:hints:motorcar:comment="street layout hard to follow for non-locals"

routing:hints:motorcar:prefer=yes
routing:hints:motorcar:comment="faster traffic than the parallel primary"

   

Nice.. +1

This would be nice for Norway.. Where some of the parallel roads can be 
very bad...


routing:hints:motorcar:avoid=yes
routing:hints:motorcar:note="parallel road have a lane in each 
direction, and fits to cars at the same time"


This could help routing away from one-lane road, with a lower quality 
than this road [1], that are 100m shorter than the 2-laner. (one each way).


[1] 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Norway-Rv7-important_single_lane_road.jpg


This is a common problem with GPS in Norway.

If this is the best road trough the aria ( E 16 ) 
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Kvamskleiva,_Vang.jpg , then you do not 
want the second best...


*E 16* is the designation of a main west-east road through Norhern 
Ireland, Scotland, Norway and soon Sweden. 



--

Michael Eric Menk
Linkedin: http://no.linkedin.com/in/mikemenk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Anthony]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Nic Roets  wrote:

> When I map, I just want to create a useful map. And when I write
> software it should be backward compatible with old data and forward
> compatible with new data and still give reasonable results. I don't
> want to waste time on finding the legal status of everything.
>

Then don't use tags which indicate the legal status.  Easy peasy, right?

The rest of your post focused on what a "routing engine" should do.  But
this discussion isn't about the routing engine.  Different routing engines
are going to have different rules.  This is about the data, and the data
should be unambiguous.  That means not using the same tag for "illegal" and
"bad for the environment" and "unsafe".
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[SomeoneElse]

Nic Roets wrote:
> Nathan, the problem is providing good routing instructions to average
> people. If we can't provide that we will loose people to Google Map
> Maker, Waze, Tom Tom etc.
>
>   
One advantage that OSM has over the commercial people is that routes get 
mapped proportionately to how real people actually want to use them 
rather than what's commercial available or commercially viable to 
re-map.  If you try and use Google Maps for pedestrian routing in 
England it'll avoid major roads, but it also ignores the plethora of 
footpaths (and more recently cycleways) that are available*.  I don't 
know of anyone else (and in the UK outside of towns that includes the 
Ordnance Survey) who has up-to-date non-road pedestrian paths available.

Other than in exceptional circumstances (e.g. Postman Pat) I doubt that 
there's any money in pedestrian routing.

Cheers,
Andy


* Google's "public transport" (essentially bus) routing is excellent 
where it's available though - although it does seem to assume that you'd 
rather wait an hour for another bus rather than walk a couple of miles 
though!


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[SomeoneElse]

Anthony wrote:
>
> Room to get off the road.  That's what I was referring to as a "shoulder".
>
Here in the third world (Derbyshire, England) we call those "hedges".  
If I avoided walking along roads without a shoulder or sidewalk of any 
sort I wouldn't get very far.

I think that we're hitting cultural differences here.  When I've been in 
the US there seems to be more of a general assumption that 
non-residential roads are for cars only and other paths (if provided, if 
you're very lucky) are for cyclists and the tiny number of pedestrians.  
In the UK the assumption has historically been that most roads are for 
everyone, with cars if necessary giving way to horses and pedestrian 
traffic.  Obviously some roads (e.g. motorways, some trunk links) are 
signed exceptions. 

It simply isn't possible to globally say that a road without a sidewalk 
is safe or unsafe (as opposed to legal) based on its attributes, unless 
someone's been there and said "yes, I've been down there and it's safe 
to walk down" - even then it'll vary by time of day / year.  Does anyone 
already use tags to indicate that?  How widely are they in use?  I can 
see lots of suggestions further down the thread but am more interested 
in what people are already using.

Cheers,
Andy



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John Smith]

On 2 June 2010 23:03, Henry Loenwind  wrote:
> routing:hints:bike:comment="foot traffic avoidance costs time"

Looks good, except I'd use note instead of comment, only because it is
more commonly used already.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Henry Loenwind]

On 02.06.2010 14:19, John Smith wrote:

> You could extend it a little and explain more specifically:
>
> unsafe:foot=narrow/fast_traffic/muggers/etc

routing:hints:foot:avoid=yes
routing:hints:foot:comment="fast traffic"

routing:hints:motorcar:avoid=yes
routing:hints:motorcar:comment="street layout hard to follow for non-locals"

routing:hints:motorcar:prefer=yes
routing:hints:motorcar:comment="faster traffic than the parallel primary"

routing:hints:bike:delay:1=40s
routing:hints:bike:delay:1:times=mo-sa:0700-1300,mo-fr:1700-1900
routing:hints:bike:delay:2=20s
routing:hints:bike:delay:2:times=su:1400-22:00
routing:hints:bike:comment="foot traffic avoidance costs time"

Just the seed of an idea...

Henry

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John F. Eldredge]

Good suggestion.

--Original Message--
From: John Smith
To: John Eldredge
Cc: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
Sent: Jun 2, 2010 7:19 AM

On 2 June 2010 22:06, John F. Eldredge  wrote:
> I agree that foot_unsafe=yes would probably be a good compromise, as it would 
> say, "yes, you can go this way, but it is risky.". This would be particularly 
> suitable for routes that are riskier under some conditions than others, such 
> as roads with narrow shoulders, risky to walk on after dark.

You could extend it a little and explain more specifically:

unsafe:foot=narrow/fast_traffic/muggers/etc


-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Nic Roets  wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
>> As others have said, foot=no when pedestrians are legally allowed is a
>> bad idea. As long as you walk against traffic, drivers will usually
>> see you, and you can easily see and get out of the way of any vehicles
>> unless the paved area extends all the way to the edge of the
>> right-of-way. The idea that one should not walk on certain roadways
>> where walking is legal, simply because certain drivers can't drive, is
>> ridiculous, and leads to legal restrictions that prohibit reasonable
>
> Nathan, the problem is providing good routing instructions to average
> people. If we can't provide that we will loose people to Google Map
> Maker, Waze, Tom Tom etc.

Then we'll lose them. If they want incorrect tagging, we don't have to
cater to them.
>
> There are many reasons why a routing engine should not follow the
> legal definition of right of way:
> 1. Safety (as discussed here).
> 2. Permissive. Fortunately a tag was defined for it long ago.
> 3. An illegal barrier (gate or fence) has been erected. And you may
> think that this strange, but it happens frequently in South Africa. In
> fact, it has happened that the municipality wanted to remove one of
> them and the residents association obtained an injunction against the
> municipality on the basis that removing it will cause the crime rate
> to return to unacceptable levels. So sometimes it is not even possible
> to determine the legal status of a right of way.
> 4. Driving on some tracks it will cause unnecessary environmental
> damage, like erosion. Sometimes such an opinion is debatable, but
> there are cases where a clear majority of local residents feel the
> same way. Usually the authorities will signpost it (effectively
> removing the right of way), but that may not always be the case.
> 5. Other things that we can't forsee right now.
>
We're not talking about cases where the public may have a theoretical
right to use a way, but it's de facto private. We're talking about the
case of a high-traffic road where pedestrians are allowed, despite the
wishes of bad drivers.

> When I map, I just want to create a useful map. And when I write
> software it should be backward compatible with old data and forward
> compatible with new data and still give reasonable results. I don't
> want to waste time on finding the legal status of everything.
>
Usually legal status, or at least de facto status, is simple: is there
a sign prohibiting pedestrians? Otherwise you're making people who
want to walk somewhere that's only accessible by a "dangerous" road
waste time finding if it's legal to do so.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John Smith]

On 2 June 2010 22:06, John F. Eldredge  wrote:
> I agree that foot_unsafe=yes would probably be a good compromise, as it would 
> say, "yes, you can go this way, but it is risky.". This would be particularly 
> suitable for routes that are riskier under some conditions than others, such 
> as roads with narrow shoulders, risky to walk on after dark.

You could extend it a little and explain more specifically:

unsafe:foot=narrow/fast_traffic/muggers/etc

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John F. Eldredge]

I agree that foot_unsafe=yes would probably be a good compromise, as it would 
say, "yes, you can go this way, but it is risky.". This would be particularly 
suitable for routes that are riskier under some conditions than others, such as 
roads with narrow shoulders, risky to walk on after dark.

--Original Message--
From: John Smith
Sender: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org
To: Nathan Edgars II
Cc: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
Sent: Jun 2, 2010 4:10 AM

On 2 June 2010 18:49, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> As others have said, foot=no when pedestrians are legally allowed is a

I was one of them if you check my replies.

> bad idea. As long as you walk against traffic, drivers will usually
> see you, and you can easily see and get out of the way of any vehicles

Just because they can see you doesn't make it a good idea to walk
along there, as I pointed out before there isn't a single criteria
that deems something safe or unsafe, it's usually a combination of
factors.

Perhaps the best way to think of this is foot_unsafe=yes if it is
likely to be a bad idea...

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Nic Roets]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> John Smith wrote:
>>If you wanted something more definite, police injury records could
>>provide alternative verifiability, if as John pointed out 5 people
>>were hurt or killed trying to cross a road than it's obviously not
>>safe.
> Only if you do the same for other vehicles - highway with lots of
> crashes means motor_vehicle=no :)
>
> As others have said, foot=no when pedestrians are legally allowed is a
> bad idea. As long as you walk against traffic, drivers will usually
> see you, and you can easily see and get out of the way of any vehicles
> unless the paved area extends all the way to the edge of the
> right-of-way. The idea that one should not walk on certain roadways
> where walking is legal, simply because certain drivers can't drive, is
> ridiculous, and leads to legal restrictions that prohibit reasonable


Nathan, the problem is providing good routing instructions to average
people. If we can't provide that we will loose people to Google Map
Maker, Waze, Tom Tom etc.

--

There are many reasons why a routing engine should not follow the
legal definition of right of way:
1. Safety (as discussed here).
2. Permissive. Fortunately a tag was defined for it long ago.
3. An illegal barrier (gate or fence) has been erected. And you may
think that this strange, but it happens frequently in South Africa. In
fact, it has happened that the municipality wanted to remove one of
them and the residents association obtained an injunction against the
municipality on the basis that removing it will cause the crime rate
to return to unacceptable levels. So sometimes it is not even possible
to determine the legal status of a right of way.
4. Driving on some tracks it will cause unnecessary environmental
damage, like erosion. Sometimes such an opinion is debatable, but
there are cases where a clear majority of local residents feel the
same way. Usually the authorities will signpost it (effectively
removing the right of way), but that may not always be the case.
5. Other things that we can't forsee right now.

When I map, I just want to create a useful map. And when I write
software it should be backward compatible with old data and forward
compatible with new data and still give reasonable results. I don't
want to waste time on finding the legal status of everything.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/6/2 John F. Eldredge :
inadvisable and/or illegal, because crossing to the other side means
having to judge the speed of multiple lanes of traffic.  All too
often, people turn out not to be as good at that as they think they
are.  I live near a section of Interstate that has four lanes going
one way, and five lanes going the other way.


+1, I was once urged to cross the motorway here:
http://werbefotos.com/luftbild/albums/a04/BAB_Kreuz_Stuttgart_Gr_enver_nderung.sized.jpg

due to hitchhiking and some strange dude that let me off in the middle
of the Autobahn (A8 Stuttgart-München, which is almost always densely
populated), and I wouldn't advise this to nobody. There are only 3+3
lanes, but drivers approaching at 200km/h and more (quite loud
actually), so even if you see them in the distance, the next second
they already advanced 60 metres.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John Smith]

On 2 June 2010 18:49, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> As others have said, foot=no when pedestrians are legally allowed is a

I was one of them if you check my replies.

> bad idea. As long as you walk against traffic, drivers will usually
> see you, and you can easily see and get out of the way of any vehicles

Just because they can see you doesn't make it a good idea to walk
along there, as I pointed out before there isn't a single criteria
that deems something safe or unsafe, it's usually a combination of
factors.

Perhaps the best way to think of this is foot_unsafe=yes if it is
likely to be a bad idea...

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/6/2 John F. Eldredge :
> With many high-speed highways (such as Interstate Highways in the USA, 
> Autobahn in Germany, etc.) you may have wide shoulders, but pedestrian use on 
> the shoulders is inadvisable and/or illegal, because crossing to the other 
> side means having to judge the speed of multiple lanes of traffic.


don't know for US Interstates, but for all the German Autobahns it is
legally forbidden to use it by foot, horse, bicycle, tractors, any
other motorized vehicle that has 50ccm and less and any other vehicle
that has a maxspeed equal or below 60 (or 80km/h, don't remember
clearly).

The same applies to "Kraftfahrstraßen", which are roads signed with
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Zeichen_331.svg&filetimestamp=20060729145019

This one (which can besides trunks also be primaries or maybe
secondary roads) we tag additionally with motorroad=yes.

These are legal restrictions and I don't expect routers to lead you
there on foot. On all other roads (no matter if inside or outside
closed settlements, and given that there are no other explicit
restrictions) you are legally entitled to walk, ride your bike/horse,
... even though you usually wouldn't (have to) do so on bigger
streets.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Nathan Edgars II]

John Smith wrote:
>If you wanted something more definite, police injury records could
>provide alternative verifiability, if as John pointed out 5 people
>were hurt or killed trying to cross a road than it's obviously not
>safe.
Only if you do the same for other vehicles - highway with lots of
crashes means motor_vehicle=no :)

As others have said, foot=no when pedestrians are legally allowed is a
bad idea. As long as you walk against traffic, drivers will usually
see you, and you can easily see and get out of the way of any vehicles
unless the paved area extends all the way to the edge of the
right-of-way. The idea that one should not walk on certain roadways
where walking is legal, simply because certain drivers can't drive, is
ridiculous, and leads to legal restrictions that prohibit reasonable
pedestrian access to large areas. For example, in Pennsylvania, at
many traffic lights, pedestrians are not allowed to cross any
approach. The effect is that a pedestrian will either cross illegally
or walk sufficiently away from the light to cross in a legal but
less-safe place.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John Smith]

On 2 June 2010 17:32, Lester Caine  wrote:
> 'Safe' for pedestrians to use is simply undefinable as we have already decided
> when trying to identify URBAN areas where one would not walk on one's own! 
> MAPS

I disagree that this is an undefinable problem, as I pointed out
before you only need to come up with a base line, could an average
human adult walk down this way without getting hit by a car?

Would an average human adult walk through some seedy part of town
without getting mugged?

If you wanted something more definite, police injury records could
provide alternative verifiability, if as John pointed out 5 people
were hurt or killed trying to cross a road than it's obviously not
safe.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Lester Caine]

Anthony wrote:
> You seem to have missed the rest of my post.  I was arguing that a road
> with no pavement but with a shoulder is *not* unsafe.  OTOH, if the road
> has no shoulder, and traffic traveling at 55 mph, and only 1 car a day,
> I'm not walking down it.

I think the POINT here is that UNLESS there is a legal restriction on walking 
down a road, then CAR DRIVERS should be aware of the fact that there may be 
other people using the road? In the case being discussed, it is not clear if 
the 
woman was following the correct procedures when walking on RURAL roads ... 
wearing something highly visible ... walking facing on-coming traffic. MANY 
busy 
rural roads in the UK are not particularly 'pedestrian friendly', but they may 
well be the ONLY way to get from A to B by foot. I was under the impression 
that 
in the US in many cases there are even fewer footpath routes going the same way 
as the roads?

'Safe' for pedestrians to use is simply undefinable as we have already decided 
when trying to identify URBAN areas where one would not walk on one's own! MAPS 
can't define what is safe. But they should at least show alternatives where 
they 
are available?

-- 
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//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John F. Eldredge]

With many high-speed highways (such as Interstate Highways in the USA, Autobahn 
in Germany, etc.) you may have wide shoulders, but pedestrian use on the 
shoulders is inadvisable and/or illegal, because crossing to the other side 
means having to judge the speed of multiple lanes of traffic.  All too often, 
people turn out not to be as good at that as they think they are.  I live near 
a section of Interstate that has four lanes going one way, and five lanes going 
the other way.  Just in the two miles closest to my house, I know of at least 
five people who have been run over, all fatally, while trying to cross the 
highway on foot.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

-Original Message-
From: John Smith 
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 11:38:31 
To: Anthony
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

On 2 June 2010 10:23, Anthony  wrote:
> You seem to have missed the rest of my post.  I was arguing that a road with
> no pavement but with a shoulder is *not* unsafe.  OTOH, if the road has no
> shoulder, and traffic traveling at 55 mph, and only 1 car a day, I'm not
> walking down it.

My mother often goes for walks on roads that have 3 or 4 times that
amount of traffic at that speed, and she isn't the only one. It's
perfectly safe to do so because there is room to get off the road and
you can usually hear them coming, especially when it's a B-Double*
instead of a car, I've never heard of any pedestrians being clipped or
killed.

The amount of traffic nor the speed they travel at nor type of traffic
doesn't inherently make walking on a road unsafe.

I have no idea of the legality of walking along roads outside towns,
but hitchhikers do it often and I don't think they get arrested.

However I think it would be a great idea to indicate the difference
between legally disallowed and just not a good idea due to personal
safety, I don't think re-using the foot tag is a good idea, because it
might be legal, but not safe to do late at night because you'll get
mugged etc etc etc.

* http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access:bdouble

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John Smith]

On 2 June 2010 12:04, Anthony  wrote:
> So, technically, here in Florida, walking on the roadway when there is a
> shoulder available (and practicable) would be illegal.  Interestingly,
> "shoulder" does not seem to be defined in the law, but I've always assumed
> it meant the part of the right of way (paved or unpaved) which was able to
> be walked upon and which was not part of the roadway.

The shoulder of the roadway is usually provided for a couple of
reasons, firstly it can help prevent the edge of the road way breaking
up when large or very large trucks need to pull over a bit to pass
oncoming traffic, it also allows a car to get off the road if they
break down, I don't think they were intended for pedestrians :)

> Best case scenario, if we really want to be able to produce adequate walking
> directions for people unfamiliar with the route, would be to map the entire
> right of way as one or more areas with surface=* designations.  Anything
> short of that is probably going to be insufficient, because there is so much
> variation as to what people would consider safe enough (between different
> people, and even between different times and scenarios - if I'm taking my
> kids with me I might want a 30 ft. wide shoulder but if I'm walking alone a
> much smaller one would be acceptable).

If you want 10m/30' wide shoulder some kind of width tag would be more
appropriate than indicating a dangerous path or not.

At the very basic level all we can assume is an older teenager or
adult is using the map data in some fashion, for other groups we would
need additional tags to indicate additional things, but if it isn't
safe for an average adult it won't be safe for any other groups
either.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Anthony]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:38 PM, John Smith wrote:

> On 2 June 2010 10:23, Anthony  wrote:
> > You seem to have missed the rest of my post.  I was arguing that a road
> with
> > no pavement but with a shoulder is *not* unsafe.  OTOH, if the road has
> no
> > shoulder, and traffic traveling at 55 mph, and only 1 car a day, I'm not
> > walking down it.
>
> My mother often goes for walks on roads that have 3 or 4 times that
> amount of traffic at that speed, and she isn't the only one. It's
> perfectly safe to do so because there is room to get off the road and
> you can usually hear them coming, especially when it's a B-Double*
> instead of a car, I've never heard of any pedestrians being clipped or
> killed.
>

Room to get off the road.  That's what I was referring to as a "shoulder".

The amount of traffic nor the speed they travel at nor type of traffic
> doesn't inherently make walking on a road unsafe.
>

Agreed.  100%.


> I have no idea of the legality of walking along roads outside towns,
> but hitchhikers do it often and I don't think they get arrested.
>

Here's the (relevant) law in Florida: "Where sidewalks are not provided, any
pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall, when practicable, walk
only on the shoulder on the left side of the roadway in relation to the
pedestrian's direction of travel, facing traffic which may approach from the
opposite direction. "

So, technically, here in Florida, walking on the roadway when there is a
shoulder available (and practicable) would be illegal.  Interestingly,
"shoulder" does not seem to be defined in the law, but I've always assumed
it meant the part of the right of way (paved or unpaved) which was able to
be walked upon and which was not part of the roadway.

However I think it would be a great idea to indicate the difference
> between legally disallowed and just not a good idea due to personal
> safety, I don't think re-using the foot tag is a good idea, because it
> might be legal, but not safe to do late at night because you'll get
> mugged etc etc etc.
>

Best case scenario, if we really want to be able to produce adequate walking
directions for people unfamiliar with the route, would be to map the entire
right of way as one or more areas with surface=* designations.  Anything
short of that is probably going to be insufficient, because there is so much
variation as to what people would consider safe enough (between different
people, and even between different times and scenarios - if I'm taking my
kids with me I might want a 30 ft. wide shoulder but if I'm walking alone a
much smaller one would be acceptable).
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John Smith]

On 2 June 2010 10:23, Anthony  wrote:
> You seem to have missed the rest of my post.  I was arguing that a road with
> no pavement but with a shoulder is *not* unsafe.  OTOH, if the road has no
> shoulder, and traffic traveling at 55 mph, and only 1 car a day, I'm not
> walking down it.

My mother often goes for walks on roads that have 3 or 4 times that
amount of traffic at that speed, and she isn't the only one. It's
perfectly safe to do so because there is room to get off the road and
you can usually hear them coming, especially when it's a B-Double*
instead of a car, I've never heard of any pedestrians being clipped or
killed.

The amount of traffic nor the speed they travel at nor type of traffic
doesn't inherently make walking on a road unsafe.

I have no idea of the legality of walking along roads outside towns,
but hitchhikers do it often and I don't think they get arrested.

However I think it would be a great idea to indicate the difference
between legally disallowed and just not a good idea due to personal
safety, I don't think re-using the foot tag is a good idea, because it
might be legal, but not safe to do late at night because you'll get
mugged etc etc etc.

* http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access:bdouble

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Anthony]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Nic Roets  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> >> Ideally, yes. But routing software can't possibly process the logic
> >> correctly in cases like these. Some roads may not have a pavement, but
> >> they are safe for pedestrians due to the lack of traffic. In other
> >> cases extreme footways should not be used because of crime.
> >
> > What does lack of traffic matter?  Unless you mean absolutely no traffic,
> I
> > don't think that makes much difference.  If the road is unsafe to walk
> on,
> > I'm not going to walk down it whether there's 1 car a day or 10,000.  If
> > there's a low enough speed limit maybe.
>
> By that logic you should never leave your house. What if a storm
> suddenly appears and you get hit by lightning ?
>

You seem to have missed the rest of my post.  I was arguing that a road with
no pavement but with a shoulder is *not* unsafe.  OTOH, if the road has no
shoulder, and traffic traveling at 55 mph, and only 1 car a day, I'm not
walking down it.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Nic Roets]

Jeffrey, when the thread was started the cycleway was incorrectly
tagged, but I fixed it soon afterwards. Cloudmade will catch up soon
enough.

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Jeffrey Ollie  wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>>
>> Looking more closely, there is a sidewalk, which turns into a "cycleway"
>> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/40967519), about 50 feet from the
>> roadway, on the southbound side which is the same side she was walking on.
>> And if she had been using the sidewalk while heading north on Main St, it
>> would have led her directly to that sidewalk.
>
> Interesting thing about that is that the cycleway shows up in Mapnik
> and OsmaRender, but doesn't in CloudMade's maps, and CloudMade doesn't
> use the cycleway for routing.  In fact CloudMade gives a nearly
> identical route to Google.  Does CloudMade's routing engine ignore
> highway=cycleway?
>
> --
> Jeff Ollie
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Jeffrey Ollie]

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>
> Looking more closely, there is a sidewalk, which turns into a "cycleway"
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/40967519), about 50 feet from the
> roadway, on the southbound side which is the same side she was walking on.
> And if she had been using the sidewalk while heading north on Main St, it
> would have led her directly to that sidewalk.

Interesting thing about that is that the cycleway shows up in Mapnik
and OsmaRender, but doesn't in CloudMade's maps, and CloudMade doesn't
use the cycleway for routing.  In fact CloudMade gives a nearly
identical route to Google.  Does CloudMade's routing engine ignore
highway=cycleway?

-- 
Jeff Ollie

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Jeffrey Ollie]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:43 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> 2010/6/1 Anthony :
>>> The road should simply be marked as having no pavement/sidewalk.
>>> Something like pavement=yes/no is a start at least. It's best to avoid
>>> subject assessments like how dangerous a road is.
>>
>> Hmm, is "shoulder" a fairly universal term?  Because shoulder=no would be
>> much more daunting to me than pavement=no.
>
> Not that I am native, but I think that shoulder is a different term
> than sidewalk/pavement, because it can also be unpaved, while a
> pavement IMHO should be paved. A shoulder is simply the side of the
> road (I guess), kept free from traffic, while a pavement is designed
> for pedestrians.

Perhaps bikeshedding here, but if you were to ask me to walk on the
pavement I'd look at you strangely. To me (and to many Americans)
pavement implies the road surface itself, not the path along the side
of the road.

-- 
Jeff Ollie

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/6/1 Anthony :
>> The road should simply be marked as having no pavement/sidewalk.
>> Something like pavement=yes/no is a start at least. It's best to avoid
>> subject assessments like how dangerous a road is.
>
> Hmm, is "shoulder" a fairly universal term?  Because shoulder=no would be
> much more daunting to me than pavement=no.


Not that I am native, but I think that shoulder is a different term
than sidewalk/pavement, because it can also be unpaved, while a
pavement IMHO should be paved. A shoulder is simply the side of the
road (I guess), kept free from traffic, while a pavement is designed
for pedestrians.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Nic Roets]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>> Ideally, yes. But routing software can't possibly process the logic
>> correctly in cases like these. Some roads may not have a pavement, but
>> they are safe for pedestrians due to the lack of traffic. In other
>> cases extreme footways should not be used because of crime.
>
> What does lack of traffic matter?  Unless you mean absolutely no traffic, I
> don't think that makes much difference.  If the road is unsafe to walk on,
> I'm not going to walk down it whether there's 1 car a day or 10,000.  If
> there's a low enough speed limit maybe.

By that logic you should never leave your house. What if a storm
suddenly appears and you get hit by lightning ?

As traffic volumes increase, following distances decrease and drivers
become overloaded with all the information. Their view may also be
obscured by the traffic. And if the oncoming lane is also full of
traffic, it gives less space for drives to take evasive action.

I've had a number of close calls where I was cycling and a driver
overtook the traffic on the outside at high speed i.e. on the left in
a country with left hand traffic. But I guess that's largely a
developing country problem.

> How about "foot=destination"? :)  I'm kidding, but it'd be better (and more
> accurate) than foot=no.

I won't argue with that.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Anthony]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Nic Roets  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Matt Williams  wrote:
> > The road should simply be marked as having no pavement/sidewalk.
> > Something like pavement=yes/no is a start at least. It's best to avoid
> > subject assessments like how dangerous a road is.
>
> Ideally, yes. But routing software can't possibly process the logic
> correctly in cases like these. Some roads may not have a pavement, but
> they are safe for pedestrians due to the lack of traffic. In other
> cases extreme footways should not be used because of crime.
>

What does lack of traffic matter?  Unless you mean absolutely no traffic, I
don't think that makes much difference.  If the road is unsafe to walk on,
I'm not going to walk down it whether there's 1 car a day or 10,000.  If
there's a low enough speed limit maybe.

If you don't trust your own opinion, ask a few locals if they would
> advise a tourist to walk there. If they say no, then tag them with
> foot=no and add a note describing why you did it.
>

So because a few locals wouldn't advise a tourist to walk there you're going
to tag the road equivalently to one that is illegal to walk on?  I think
we've gotta do better than that.  I'd prefer the ambiguous foot=dangerous to
foot=no.  Especially if you're saying that high traffic + no pavement =
dangerous (I've walked on plenty of roads with high traffic and no pavement
- as long as they have a shoulder I wouldn't tag them as "foot=no, never,
way too dangerous", I'd tag them as "foot=try to find a better route, but if
you must, use caution".

How about "foot=destination"? :)  I'm kidding, but it'd be better (and more
accurate) than foot=no.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Nic Roets]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Elena of Valhalla
 wrote:
> On 6/1/10, Nic Roets  wrote:
>> If you don't trust your own opinion, ask a few locals if they would
>> advise a tourist to walk there. If they say no, then tag them with
>> foot=no and add a note describing why you did it.
>
> I don't think this would be correct: foot=no usually means "you are
> not legally allowed to walk here", not "this road may be dangerous for
> you to walk on"
>
> using a different tag may be appropriate, however

Which one, or do I have to invent a new one ? The problem is that
tagging standards change faster than the map can be reviewed. For
example, I did most of my mapping during 2008. At stage the access=no
tag indicated that "Access by this transport mode not permitted or
unsuitable". "dangerous" is one form of being unsuitable.

I'd much rather use the tag that is the best approximation of reality
and add a note if it is really necessary.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Elena of Valhalla]

On 6/1/10, Nic Roets  wrote:
> If you don't trust your own opinion, ask a few locals if they would
> advise a tourist to walk there. If they say no, then tag them with
> foot=no and add a note describing why you did it.

I don't think this would be correct: foot=no usually means "you are
not legally allowed to walk here", not "this road may be dangerous for
you to walk on"

using a different tag may be appropriate, however

-- 
Elena ``of Valhalla''

homepage: http://www.trueelena.org
email: elena.valha...@gmail.com

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Nic Roets]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Matt Williams  wrote:
> The road should simply be marked as having no pavement/sidewalk.
> Something like pavement=yes/no is a start at least. It's best to avoid
> subject assessments like how dangerous a road is.

Ideally, yes. But routing software can't possibly process the logic
correctly in cases like these. Some roads may not have a pavement, but
they are safe for pedestrians due to the lack of traffic. In other
cases extreme footways should not be used because of crime.

If you don't trust your own opinion, ask a few locals if they would
advise a tourist to walk there. If they say no, then tag them with
foot=no and add a note describing why you did it.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Anthony]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Matt Williams  wrote:

> On 1 June 2010 13:33, Jason Cunningham  wrote:
> > 1... What's the correct way of tagging a street as 'dangerous/suicidal'
> for
> > pedestrians in OSM? (Couldnt find an answer in the wiki)
> > Recently come across a road in my area (London, UK) that had no pavement
> and
> > which clearly should be avoided by pedestrains, but there were no
> > restrictions in place for pedestrians (apart from common sense). The UK
> also
> > does not have restrictions on pedestrains being on roads that some other
> > countries have.
> >
> > So, in my opinion, foot=no would be wrong because it incorrectly
> indicates
> > pedestrians are not allowed. I guess foot=dangerous would be useful for
> > routing software, but is there agreed way of tagging these problem roads.
>
> The road should simply be marked as having no pavement/sidewalk.
> Something like pavement=yes/no is a start at least. It's best to avoid
> subject assessments like how dangerous a road is.
>

Hmm, is "shoulder" a fairly universal term?  Because shoulder=no would be
much more daunting to me than pavement=no.

Also, if the street really is dangerous/suicidal, is there any chance you
can report it to the govt. so they can either fix it or ban pedestrians?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Matt Williams]

On 1 June 2010 13:33, Jason Cunningham  wrote:
> 1... What's the correct way of tagging a street as 'dangerous/suicidal' for
> pedestrians in OSM? (Couldnt find an answer in the wiki)
> Recently come across a road in my area (London, UK) that had no pavement and
> which clearly should be avoided by pedestrains, but there were no
> restrictions in place for pedestrians (apart from common sense). The UK also
> does not have restrictions on pedestrains being on roads that some other
> countries have.
>
> So, in my opinion, foot=no would be wrong because it incorrectly indicates
> pedestrians are not allowed. I guess foot=dangerous would be useful for
> routing software, but is there agreed way of tagging these problem roads.

The road should simply be marked as having no pavement/sidewalk.
Something like pavement=yes/no is a start at least. It's best to avoid
subject assessments like how dangerous a road is.

-- 
Matt Williams
http://milliams.com

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John Smith]

On 1 June 2010 22:33, Jason Cunningham  wrote:
> 2...Had a look at that American road in Google Satelitte
> (http://tinyurl.com/33dvn78)  If I was that women I'd be more worried about
> the colour of the Golf Courses. That's the most unnatural shade of green
> I've ever seen.

Google has done some nasty tweaking of colours in the last 6 months or
so, I really can't stand looking at their sat imagery now because it
looks so badly corrected.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Jason Cunningham]

1... What's the correct way of tagging a street as 'dangerous/suicidal' for
pedestrians in OSM? (Couldnt find an answer in the wiki)
Recently come across a road in my area (London, UK) that had no pavement and
which clearly should be avoided by pedestrains, but there were no
restrictions in place for pedestrians (apart from common sense). The UK also
does not have restrictions on pedestrains being on roads that some other
countries have.

So, in my opinion, foot=no would be wrong because it incorrectly indicates
pedestrians are not allowed. I guess foot=dangerous would be useful for
routing software, but is there agreed way of tagging these problem roads.

2...Had a look at that American road in Google Satelitte (
http://tinyurl.com/33dvn78)  If I was that women I'd be more worried about
the colour of the Golf Courses. That's the most unnatural shade of green
I've ever seen.

Jason
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John Smith]

On 1 June 2010 17:04, Nic Roets  wrote:
> That's an interesting article. But the details are sketchy: 300,000
> out of a total of how many ? Are there any controlled studies where

I don't think there needs another total, I'm guessing people blamed
the accident on their satnav when reporting damage to their insurance
company, people always like to put the fault on other people/things,
the satnav can't defend itself.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Nic Roets]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:07 AM, John Smith  wrote:
> On 1 June 2010 09:52, Tim McNamara  wrote:
>> Still, even if they breached the duty of care, the injured woman will still
>> need to establish that the breach was a cause of her injury.
>
> The only thing that is new in all this is pedestrian routing, people
> have been following incorrect satnav routes for ages and usually
> driving into places they shouldn't as a result, people seem to love to
> be told what to do:
>
> http://www.intology.com/science-technology/satnav-causes-30-accidents-in-uk-each-year/

That's an interesting article. But the details are sketchy: 300,000
out of a total of how many ? Are there any controlled studies where
they establish cause and effect ? e.g. take away Satnav from some
drivers and see what happens, or insist that they use it and see what
happens.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John Smith]

On 1 June 2010 09:52, Tim McNamara  wrote:
> Still, even if they breached the duty of care, the injured woman will still
> need to establish that the breach was a cause of her injury.

The only thing that is new in all this is pedestrian routing, people
have been following incorrect satnav routes for ages and usually
driving into places they shouldn't as a result, people seem to love to
be told what to do:

http://www.intology.com/science-technology/satnav-causes-30-accidents-in-uk-each-year/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Tim McNamara]

On 1 June 2010 09:23, Nakor  wrote:

>  On 5/31/2010 4:36 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
>  Her lawyers claim Google is liable because it did not warn her
> that the route would not offer a safe place for a pedestrian to walk.
>
>
>  Did Google add their notice after the fact?
>
> "*Walking directions are in beta.* Use caution – This route may be missing
> sidewalks or pedestrian paths."
>

Here's a case from NZ where something similar happened that didn't lead to
injury. Until this article was posted, Google Maps directed people through
Wellington's bus tunnel, a 1 way tunnel which barely has enough width for
buses to travel through.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3552037/Google-maps-off-course-with-walk-through-bus-tunnel

At that incident Goolge's response was:

Google spokeswoman Annie Baxter said the walking directions search function
in Google Maps was still at an experimental phase.

"We clearly advise people to use caution as routes might be missing
footpaths or pedestrian-friendly paths."

This implies that they they're undertaking a responsibility to notify people
when routes are generated. I guess if the BlackBerry version doesn't include
the disclaimer, there's an argument to say that Google didn't meet its
(self-imposed?) duty of care to the consumers.

Still, even if they breached the duty of care, the injured woman will still
need to establish that the breach was a cause of her injury.

Tim.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Anthony]

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:40 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
>> On 1 June 2010 07:29, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Nakor wrote:
>> >> Did Google add their notice after the fact?
>> >
>> > I am trying to make it a habit to read articles before I reply to them
>> > and have already found it saves me some embarassment.
>>
>> In this case it doesn't matter if there is a notice or not, I
>> personally wouldn't go and play on a busy road just because some
>> mapping software suggests it's a good idea :)
>>
>
> She wasn't playing, she was walking to her destination.  I can't tell from
> the pictures whether it was her fault for following the route, her fault for
> walking on the wrong side of the road, her fault for not staying close
> enough to the side of the road, the government's fault for not banning
> pedestrians, the government's fault for setting too high of a speed limit,
> or the car driver's fault.  From the aerials it does look as though there
> was enough room on at least one side of the road to walk (it wasn't a paved
> sidewalk, but whatever).
>
> Ridiculous that she'd try to blame Google, though.
>

Looking more closely, there is a sidewalk, which turns into a "cycleway" (
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/40967519), about 50 feet from the
roadway, on the southbound side which is the same side she was walking on.
And if she had been using the sidewalk while heading north on Main St, it
would have led her directly to that sidewalk.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Anthony]

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:40 PM, John Smith wrote:

> On 1 June 2010 07:29, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Nakor wrote:
> >> Did Google add their notice after the fact?
> >
> > I am trying to make it a habit to read articles before I reply to them
> > and have already found it saves me some embarassment.
>
> In this case it doesn't matter if there is a notice or not, I
> personally wouldn't go and play on a busy road just because some
> mapping software suggests it's a good idea :)
>

She wasn't playing, she was walking to her destination.  I can't tell from
the pictures whether it was her fault for following the route, her fault for
walking on the wrong side of the road, her fault for not staying close
enough to the side of the road, the government's fault for not banning
pedestrians, the government's fault for setting too high of a speed limit,
or the car driver's fault.  From the aerials it does look as though there
was enough room on at least one side of the road to walk (it wasn't a paved
sidewalk, but whatever).

Ridiculous that she'd try to blame Google, though.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John Smith]

On 1 June 2010 07:29, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Nakor wrote:
>> Did Google add their notice after the fact?
>
> I am trying to make it a habit to read articles before I reply to them
> and have already found it saves me some embarassment.

In this case it doesn't matter if there is a notice or not, I
personally wouldn't go and play on a busy road just because some
mapping software suggests it's a good idea :)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Nakor]

On 5/31/2010 5:29 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Nakor wrote:
>> Did Google add their notice after the fact?
>
> I am trying to make it a habit to read articles before I reply to them 
> and have already found it saves me some embarassment.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
They claim the warning was not displayed on the Blackberry. Did Google 
add the notice to the BlackBerry after that?

   Thanks,

N.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Nakor wrote:
> Did Google add their notice after the fact?

I am trying to make it a habit to read articles before I reply to them 
and have already found it saves me some embarassment.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Nakor]

On 5/31/2010 4:36 PM, John Smith wrote:

  Her lawyers claim Google is liable because it did not warn her
that the route would not offer a safe place for a pedestrian to walk.
   

Did Google add their notice after the fact?

"*Walking directions are in beta.* Use caution -- This route may be 
missing sidewalks or pedestrian paths."


  Thanks,

N.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John Smith]

Hugh Pickens writes "The Toronto Star reports that a Utah woman is
suing Google for more than $100,000 in damages, claiming its maps
function gave her walking directions that led her onto a major
highway, where she was struck by a car. Lauren Rosenberg sought
directions between two addresses in Utah about 3 kilometers apart and
the top result suggested that she follow a busy rural highway for
several hundred meters. The highway did not have sidewalks or any
other pedestrian-friendly amenities, and Rosenberg was struck by a
car. Rosenberg filed suit against both the driver of the car that
struck her and Google, claiming both carried responsibility in her
injury. Her lawyers claim Google is liable because it did not warn her
that the route would not offer a safe place for a pedestrian to walk.
Google has pointed out that the directions Rosenberg sought come with
a warning of caution for pedestrians, but Rosenberg claims that she
accessed the Maps function on her Blackberry mobile device, where it
did not include the warning."

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/05/31/1742203/Pedestrian-Follows-Google-Map-Gets-Run-Over-Sues?from=rss

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk