On 04/08/2016 02:35, Mike Thompson wrote:
I tested out the proposed mapping/tagging scheme in my local area (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/40.49192/-105.05655 - not claiming I did it perfectly). I didn't think it was especially difficult. Drawing the additional ways took a little more time, but offered the advantage that you received a good visual as to whether all the sidewalks had been correctly mapped.
Thanks for sharing that. One question though - would it make sense to use "sidewalk=separate" (see http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/sidewalk#values ) on http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33496127 ? That way it's clear to all data consumers that http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33496127 exists as a sidewalk for it.
I'm guessing that there may be some connections (and possibly kerbs) missing, so that a foot router that navigated people over kerbs wouldn't use:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=40.49172%2C-105.05390%3B40.49167%2C-105.05421#map=18/40.49184/-105.05462 but take a more direct route across the intersection and along a bit? Cheers, Andy
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
