Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Traffic Islands, pedestrian areas and footways for routing purposes
I marked this along with other mails to reply to and somehow missed it so apologies for the late reply I took a quick look in taginfo [1] (we also have a version for Ireland incase people didn't know [2]) and in the wiki and the most used option is traffic_calming=island (14k) There is also landuse=traffic_island (2k uses). While neither way is wrong per se, the traffic_calming one fits within the traffic_calming schema so is probably the better option There's some sparse detail on the wiki about it here [3] and here [4] In terms of access, if there is a barrier running down the middle, map the barrier as such e.g. barrier=fence etc With regards to routing, you can test that out on the OSM site. I used your O Connell Street example [5]. Something such as the meridian in OC Street, I'm not sure that would be considered a traffic island? 1 - http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/ 2 - http://taginfo.openstreetmap.ie/ 3 - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_calming - Bottom of page 4 - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:traffic_calming%3Disland 5 - http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_foot&route=53.3474%2C-6.2595%3B53.3524%2C-6.2613#map=16/53.3499/-6.2603 Hope this helps Dave On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Conor wrote: > Hi all, > > Colm and myself raised an issue relating to pedestrianised areas and > footways a month ago and there was no response at the time. This > issues are ongoing and I'm wondering if anyone has an opinion a month > later? I'll include Colm's and my own original messages below. Thanks > > = > > Hi, > I'm wondering what the best way is to deal with traffic islands - the > parts of roads that aren't roadway / carriageway and aren't lateral > footways / footpaths. Sometimes they are unmapped, sometimes they are > mapped as pedestrian areas and/or pedestrian ways . > On the road, they generally come in one of three fashions:1. No > pedestrian access / no meaningful pedestrian use, e.g. Dorset Street > Lower in Dublin, where there are trees every 10 meters that block the > way. Not mapped, other than as two separate roadways. Should these be > mapped at all? > > https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3599777,-6.261141,3a,75y,44.35h,85.42t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0YTaJATDMDakjhiLjRa__w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D0YTaJATDMDakjhiLjRa__w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D219.34166%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656 > 2. Those where pedestrian access is an important part of their use, > e.g. at the central median on O'Connell Bridge in Dublin. Mapped as > pedestrian area linked to pedestrian ways at the south end, but not > the north end, effectively making it a cul de sac. I'm not sure how > route planners treat areas. > > https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3470972,-6.2591266,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7ed2ZerYJnbZnrW-0cHENQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D7ed2ZerYJnbZnrW-0cHENQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D94.366425%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656 > 3. Traffic islands at signaled junctions generally, e.g. at the > junction of O'Connell Bridge / D'Olier Street / Westmoreland Street. > Mapped as pedestrian areas and pedestrian ways. > Thank you > Colm > > = > > Hi Colm, > > Perhaps you're the same Colm that I was in touch with on a similar > subject a few days ago? If so, we had discussed raising this on the > mailing list so either way this would be as good a time to add some > further thoughts to the subject if that's ok. Apologies for the long > read... > > The aspects you drew attention here to are really interesting as they > highlight how differently all contributors to OSM can see the value, > use and appeal of the map. I myself am more biased towards visual > reading of maps (yes, that old fashioned way) and sometimes see people > question the value of mapping something where I see no question at > all. All valid questions though, of course. In my attempts at > recommending OSM to various friends and work colleagues for actual map > usage most try and use it for visual reading of a map (they generally > find it doesn't work as well as Google for directions), whereas any > friends who would be more technically inclined often find the routing, > tools and contributing more appealing. > > I've come across a potential clash of solutions for drawing and > tagging for routing applications vs drawing and tagging for visual > applications on OSM. As mentioned above, people contributing to the > map can be attracted to it for varying reasons and I caught a pattern > occuring in lots of areas I was contributing to. Seeing that all > applications and uses should be catered for as best as possible, > myself and VictorIE (the same Colm?) got talking about our difference > of opinions on the matter. > > The issue I raised revolves around the use of short, sporadic footways > that appear in locations where there isn't a
[OSM-talk-ie] Traffic Islands, pedestrian areas and footways for routing purposes
Hi all, Colm and myself raised an issue relating to pedestrianised areas and footways a month ago and there was no response at the time. This issues are ongoing and I'm wondering if anyone has an opinion a month later? I'll include Colm's and my own original messages below. Thanks = Hi, I'm wondering what the best way is to deal with traffic islands - the parts of roads that aren't roadway / carriageway and aren't lateral footways / footpaths. Sometimes they are unmapped, sometimes they are mapped as pedestrian areas and/or pedestrian ways . On the road, they generally come in one of three fashions:1. No pedestrian access / no meaningful pedestrian use, e.g. Dorset Street Lower in Dublin, where there are trees every 10 meters that block the way. Not mapped, other than as two separate roadways. Should these be mapped at all? https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3599777,-6.261141,3a,75y,44.35h,85.42t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0YTaJATDMDakjhiLjRa__w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D0YTaJATDMDakjhiLjRa__w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D219.34166%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656 2. Those where pedestrian access is an important part of their use, e.g. at the central median on O'Connell Bridge in Dublin. Mapped as pedestrian area linked to pedestrian ways at the south end, but not the north end, effectively making it a cul de sac. I'm not sure how route planners treat areas. https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3470972,-6.2591266,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7ed2ZerYJnbZnrW-0cHENQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D7ed2ZerYJnbZnrW-0cHENQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D94.366425%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656 3. Traffic islands at signaled junctions generally, e.g. at the junction of O'Connell Bridge / D'Olier Street / Westmoreland Street. Mapped as pedestrian areas and pedestrian ways. Thank you Colm = Hi Colm, Perhaps you're the same Colm that I was in touch with on a similar subject a few days ago? If so, we had discussed raising this on the mailing list so either way this would be as good a time to add some further thoughts to the subject if that's ok. Apologies for the long read... The aspects you drew attention here to are really interesting as they highlight how differently all contributors to OSM can see the value, use and appeal of the map. I myself am more biased towards visual reading of maps (yes, that old fashioned way) and sometimes see people question the value of mapping something where I see no question at all. All valid questions though, of course. In my attempts at recommending OSM to various friends and work colleagues for actual map usage most try and use it for visual reading of a map (they generally find it doesn't work as well as Google for directions), whereas any friends who would be more technically inclined often find the routing, tools and contributing more appealing. I've come across a potential clash of solutions for drawing and tagging for routing applications vs drawing and tagging for visual applications on OSM. As mentioned above, people contributing to the map can be attracted to it for varying reasons and I caught a pattern occuring in lots of areas I was contributing to. Seeing that all applications and uses should be catered for as best as possible, myself and VictorIE (the same Colm?) got talking about our difference of opinions on the matter. The issue I raised revolves around the use of short, sporadic footways that appear in locations where there isn't a designated footway. In terms of visual mapping I am not a fan. I've seen them appear as multiple desire lines across fields or as someone's preference for where they may cross a traffic island on a busy road where there is no markings or crossing in real life. In this instance, an almost infinite combination of footways could be drawn across the traffic islands/fields and, although there are certainly exceptions where the footway aids in suggesting where to walk, it seems to benefit routing applications to the detrement of visual applications. Footways drawn in urban areas can be potentially confusing at communicating visually. I've seen understandable additions where they've been added in locations where the footway area is wide to give some visual sense to the void of space on the map between roads (e.g. some may read a large void between roads as potentially containing buildings/fields). In my opinion, the presence of a short footway on the map can suggest that there's something preferential to it over all the adjoining ones I assume are there in real life, or that there's a lack of others. Where the footway is wide, the limitation of an OSM way being uniformly thin can be hard to decipher when trying to be confident you're in the right location from a visual map reading. Pedestrian way areas solve most of the visual problem but don't help routing where it's needed with mo
