đMartin âŁEnvoyĂ© par BlueMail â
Le 3 avr. 2020 16:26, Ă 16:26, Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> a Ă©crit: >Nate, when reading this and other comments I try to figure who puts >those sidewalks in and to the benefit of what users. From what I can >see it is being done by university groups essentially, not the >community. The beneficiaries are organizations that funds those groups >with strings attached, essentially buying a service. The OSM mass of >end-users is not it appears the beneficiary but rather a very small >group of people. I thus ask very honestly are the universities >hijacking OSM to execute their research projects just because it is >there, free and easily usable ? Are OSM users ever a concern ? With >regards to this specific sidewalk mapping effort I really have a hard >time figuring how a mainstream OSM user, through the site or a mobile >app, benefits in any way from this added layer or complexity. I tend to >think to the contrary is makes the map overly complex, add information >nobody will ever care about, render the experience cumbersome, that >with no tangible gain. If that was the case I donât think that would be >right. > >I donât mean this to be inflammatory but just an honest questioning. > >> On Apr 3, 2020, at 15:14, Nate Wessel <bike...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I used to be opposed to sidewalk mapping, and I still think it is >often done poorly. I've changed my mind in the last year or two though. >When I first moved into my current neighborhood and started mapping the >area, I hated at all the poorly drawn sidewalks. They weren't well >aligned, they didn't do anything to indicate crossings, and they were >far from complete. For a while I was temped to delete the lot of them, >but instead worked to gradually fix them up, noted marked or signalized >crossings, added in traffic islands, pedestrian barriers etc. >> >> Once you have a high-quality, relatively complete mapping of >sidewalks, I really think they add a lot of value. You can see where >sidewalks end, where crossings are absent, how long crossings are, >whether there is separation from other traffic by e.g. fence or >bollards. >> >> It's not just about routing. Sidewalks (and crossings) are >infrastructure in their own right and deserve to be mapped as such, at >least in many dense urban areas, and especially where they vary >significantly from street to street. I'm not saying it should be done >everywhere, but it definitely does have value in some places. >> >> Best, >> >> Nate Wessel, PhD >> Planner, Cartographer, Transport Nerd >> NateWessel.com <https://www.natewessel.com/> >> On 2020-04-03 2:49 p.m., Frederik Ramm wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 4/3/20 19:45, Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca wrote: >>>> This morning I checked some large cities namely New-York, Paris, >Amsterdam, London, Berlin. Since OSM is best developed in Europe these >capitals make sense. I just checked Tokyo, Shangai, Seoul, Sydney to >sample Asia. None of them have this sidewalk mapping as separate ways. >>> There are pockets here and there in Europe as well. Mostly what >happens >>> is this: >>> >>> 1. Someone wants to make a cool pedestrian/wheelchair/schoolkid >routing >>> project >>> >>> 2. The person or team has limited programming capability or budget, >and >>> hence must attack the problem with a standard routing engine >>> >>> 3. Standard routing engines do not have the capability to infer a >>> sidewalk network from appropriately tagged streets (i.e. even if the >>> street has a tag that indicates there's sidewalks left and right, >the >>> routing engine will not generate individual edges and hence cannot >do >>> something like "follow left side of X road here, then cross there, >then >>> follow right side" or so >>> >>> 4. Hence, tons of sidewalks (and often also pseudo-ways across >plazas) >>> are entered into OSM, to "make the routing work". >>> >>> (5. often people will then find that the routing engine generates >>> instructions like "follow unnamed footway for 1 mile" which leads >them >>> to copy the road's name onto the sidewalk geometry... to "make the >>> routing work"). >>> >>> (6. In some countries a pedestrian is allowed to cross a street >>> anywhere. Happily I haven't yet encountered people cris-crossing the >>> streets with footway connections to "make the routing work" in these >>> countries. If you're in a country where you are only allowed to >cross at >>> marked crossings then that is easier.) >>> >>> All this is a sad state of affairs; if we had routing engines that >could >>> work well with simple "sidewalk" tags (and also make standard >>> assumptions about which road types in which countries would usually >have >>> sidewalks even if not explicitly tagged), then we could save >ourselves a >>> *lot* of separately mapped sidewalks that really do not add valuable >>> information, and just serve as crutches for routing engines. >>> >>> Personally I am very much opposed to the separate mapping of >sidewalks, >>> though I recognize that unless we have routing engines that work >without >>> these crutches, I will have a hard time convincing people to stop >doing >>> that. >>> >>> Bye >>> Frederik >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-ca mailing list >> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Talk-ca mailing list >Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
