[Talk-GB] Advice on footpaths - when should they be separate, when not?
Looking for some advice in Bletchley, specifically, but to answer a more general point about footpaths. Please look at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.99530/-0.73751 Bletchley Rail Station sits in the middle, and to the west is the main road, which is Sherwood Drive. There is also a footpath shown coming from the station and along the eastern side of Sherwood Drive, but not on the western side. This feels very wrong to me on a number of levels. For starters, the footpath doesn’t connect to Sherwood Drive except at the bottom, so it isn’t apparent that you can cross the road to go along Selwyn Grove, for example. Also, there is no footpath going north, nor is there a footpath on the western side of Sherwood Drive, despite it being quite clearly there on Streetview. In addition, Sherwood Drive already has the tag Sidewalk=both which rather makes the footpath redundant, doesn’t it? My inclination would be to rip out the footpath and rely on the sidewalk tag, except that seems extreme and it isn’t wrong per se. So what is the guidance here? Ought the road have a distinct footpath both sides? Or not footpath, and use the tags on the road, or just connecting spurs from the footpath to the road at key points (e.g. opposite Selwyn Grove), or what…? Thanks Stuart Stuart Reynolds for traveline south east anglia ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Advice on footpaths - when should they be separate, when not?
My inclination is to draw them in (just on main roads for the moment) but I add an adjacent=yes tag so that there's a basic flag that they're part of a bigger street structure. I started to do this when I wanted to mark crossings as linear features, rather than just as dots. Richard On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Stuart Reynolds stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk wrote: Looking for some advice in Bletchley, specifically, but to answer a more general point about footpaths. Please look at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.99530/-0.73751 Bletchley Rail Station sits in the middle, and to the west is the main road, which is Sherwood Drive. There is also a footpath shown coming from the station and along the eastern side of Sherwood Drive, but not on the western side. This feels very wrong to me on a number of levels. For starters, the footpath doesn’t connect to Sherwood Drive except at the bottom, so it isn’t apparent that you can cross the road to go along Selwyn Grove, for example. Also, there is no footpath going north, nor is there a footpath on the western side of Sherwood Drive, despite it being quite clearly there on Streetview. In addition, Sherwood Drive already has the tag Sidewalk=both which rather makes the footpath redundant, doesn’t it? My inclination would be to rip out the footpath and rely on the sidewalk tag, except that seems extreme and it isn’t wrong *per se.* So what is the guidance here? Ought the road have a distinct footpath both sides? Or not footpath, and use the tags on the road, or just connecting spurs from the footpath to the road at key points (e.g. opposite Selwyn Grove), or what…? Thanks Stuart Stuart Reynolds for traveline south east anglia ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Advice on footpaths - when should they be separate, when not?
On 01/12/2014 11:39, Stuart Reynolds wrote: Looking for some advice in Bletchley, specifically, but to answer a more general point about footpaths. : So what is the guidance here? Ought the road have a distinct footpath both sides? Or not footpath, and use the tags on the road, or just connecting spurs from the footpath to the road at key points (e.g. opposite Selwyn Grove), or what…? I think mapping the path explicitly is perfectly reasonable if it is (for at least some of its length) separated from the road by a non-trivial distance (say more than a couple of feet of grass). I agree that managing the transitions between such explicit paths and implicit sidewalk tagged sections is clunky! -- Cheers, John ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Advice on footpaths - when should they be separate, when not?
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:39:48 + Stuart Reynolds stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk wrote: My inclination would be to rip out the footpath and rely on the sidewalk tag, except that seems extreme and it isn’t wrong per se. I'd say that it is wrong on the basis that it implies that you may only cross where the path shares a node with another way. When mapping pedestrian access I always use the sidewalk tag except: * Where there is a physical barrier between the pavement and the road. * Where the pavement is separate from the rest of the highway - grass that you can step over in a single stride is still a sidewalk but anything greater is a path in its own right. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Advice on footpaths - when should they be separate, when not?
On 01/12/14 11:39, Stuart Reynolds wrote: road, which is Sherwood Drive. There is also a footpath shown coming from the station and along the eastern side of Sherwood Drive, but not on the western side. I think it can be difficult to justify undoing micro-mappings, like this, even though they clutter the standard rendering and can be confusing. That's because they generally do add real information. This feels very wrong to me on a number of levels. For starters, the footpath doesn’t connect to Sherwood Drive except at the bottom, so it isn’t apparent that you can cross the road to go along Selwyn Grove, for I think this is a special case of a general problem with pedestrian routing that, in the absence of barriers, there can be an infinity of potential crossover points, not just between explicit sidewalks, but also between roads and adjacent fields or pedestrian squares. I haven't seen the adjacent tag before, but I don't think just yes or no would be enough. example. Also, there is no footpath going north, nor is there a footpath on the western side of Sherwood Drive, despite it being quite clearly there on Streetview. In addition, Sherwood Drive already has the tag OS StreetView suppresses all footpaths! Google Streetview is inadmissible. Micro-mapping has to stop somewhere, and, if the sidewalk on the other side is straightforward, it might be the best place to stop. Sidewalk=both which rather makes the footpath redundant, doesn’t it? sidewalk=both is wrong, but that should be fixed by correcting the sidewalk tag. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Advice on footpaths - when should they be separate, when not?
On 01/12/2014 11:58, John Aldridge wrote: On 01/12/2014 11:39, Stuart Reynolds wrote: Looking for some advice in Bletchley, specifically, but to answer a more general point about footpaths. : So what is the guidance here? Ought the road have a distinct footpath both sides? Or not footpath, and use the tags on the road, or just connecting spurs from the footpath to the road at key points (e.g. opposite Selwyn Grove), or what…? I think mapping the path explicitly is perfectly reasonable if it is (for at least some of its length) separated from the road by a non-trivial distance (say more than a couple of feet of grass). I'd agree with that - and where that isn't the case I'd definitely use sidewalk=left/right/both to indicate that the road has a sidewalk. Also, it can be difficult to work out exactly what's going on if you haven't actually been there, so I'd be reluctant to change mapping from sidewalk=blah to a separate footway without a survey (unless its really obviously wrong - e.g. no connections at all between footpaths and roads). That's not a problem here I'm sure as I suspect Traveline folks will all have a very good mental picture of all station surrounds on their patch! Usage of adjacent seems to be fairly localised in the UK: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/6k7 Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Advice on footpaths - when should they be separate, when not?
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:22 PM, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote: Usage of adjacent seems to be fairly localised in the UK: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/6k7 Yeah, probably just me (maybe nobody else feels the need to make the distinction). I think there are some places in Germany where they have separately drawn all the sidewalks, might be worth looking for/at. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Advice on footpaths - when should they be separate, when not?
On 2014-12-01 13:57, Richard Mann wrote: On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:22 PM, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk mailto:li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote: Usage of adjacent seems to be fairly localised in the UK: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/6k7 Yeah, probably just me (maybe nobody else feels the need to make the distinction). I think there are some places in Germany where they have separately drawn all the sidewalks, might be worth looking for/at. If mapping them as separate ways, you can tag them as highway=footway + footway=sidewalk. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dsidewalk That tag seems to be fairly common across much of the UK. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Advice on footpaths - when should they be separate, when not?
I would map to the first dropped kerb and join back to the road. I would leave what's there but add a link to the road (perhaps at the exit road of the station). Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
