Theodore Ahlvin via Talk-dk: > Hejso! The Apple team has recently been investigating pedestrian navigability > in > Denmark and we’ve come across some issues that would be best handled with > consensus > from the OSM Denmark community. > > Often streets intersect with dual carriageways where there are no crossings > marked > for pedestrians. For example, how Fyensgade intersects with Viborgvej at > 56.4631795, > 10.0156701 (way 30155258).
Although it is mapped as such it is not a dual carriageway. It is just a 3-lane road. > In this situation, and similar situations across the > country, it could be dangerous or illegal for pedestrians to cross the dual > carriageway. These crossings can also be all but impossible for individuals > with > disabilities using OSM to navigate. Our team has been adding ‘foot=no’ tags > to these > sections, but after a conversation with user MikkoLukas > (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/76508518) we’ve decided to > investigate a > solution which the rest of the OSM Denmark community agrees on. > > There are several potential solutions to this problem. It could be argued that > ‘foot=no’ could be inferred from Danish law on jay-walking and added to these > sections. It could also be argued that ‘sidewalk=no’ or ‘sidewalk=none’ can > be added > to these sections, and would be accurate to ground truth, and used to > discourage > pedestrian crossings. That is fine. > Finally, it could also be argued that ‘crossing=no’ could be > added to these sections, as it true to what is on the ground and the most > accurate > tag to describe why pedestrians should not be using these crossings. But it is not in agreement with the wiki: == crossing=no Where definitely no crossing is possible/legal. == Most of these places crossing is legal. And also possible. I checked some of the places next to where I live. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/741999858 Here I would definitely cross if I was going to e.g. get Pad Thai at Silom (only takeaway these days). Mapillary shows a woman with a baby in a stroller crossing. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=55.70762594701322&lng=12.57759287954548&z=19.835082818934595&focus=photo&pKey=2tHMWX81lwmpOqhsk7Qv-A&x=0.493077194298716&y=0.5084516460903186&zoom=0 And a man with a briefcase https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=55.70777300000003&lng=12.577458999999976&z=17.33401951912169&focus=photo&pKey=TsTevHvJ7fM42UTFj9BMBg&x=0.3287055691075136&y=0.629673975882654&zoom=1.5714384505222498 And a woman pushing her bicycle. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=55.70800178117224&lng=12.578095590662997&z=17&focus=photo&pKey=4wLoVBa1_WgIWaN_7u870A&x=0.512705475608936&y=0.6502507080583815&zoom=0 Now, Tagensvej is more busy. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/741994862 That would depend on the traffic and the time of day. If the traffic was very heavy, I might walk to crossing. Jagtvej: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/741998442 I often cross here. And I do not see why https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/548963283 would be any safer or better. And consider Jagtvej/Drejøgade. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/741995586 There is no crossing, zebras, etc. But notice on this Mapillary image that where Drejøgade goes through the central reservation, there is actually two pieces of standard Copenhagen sidewalk with paving stones and all. Clearly the city made that for pedestrians crossing here. Which illustrates that often dual carriageways are safer to cross than undivided roads, because you are safe in the middle. And how would you tag that there is no pedestrian crossing in an intersection between two undivided roads. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=55.70809956645189&lng=12.572416383784798&z=17&focus=photo&pKey=C-H7g_AqR6lbdo6k0XGT9g&x=0.5131149194028691&y=0.6412910699880935&zoom=0 So in summary, you have marked a lot of the routes, that I normally walk, with foot=no. > I think this information would be very valuable to include in OSM for both > individuals with disabilities as well as for pedestrians. What solution to > this issue > would the OSM Denmark community prefer going forward? We should just mark all crossings. Then routers can decide, and users can make profiles. When driving I can route for shortest distance, shortest time, etc. And I can avoid gravel roads, motorways. Apple could make routers that prefers crossings to following minor roads through dual carriageways. And users could decide that they only want to use crossings, when crossing dual carriageways. > Our team can go back and add > whichever tags are decided on in place of the ‘foot=no’ tags previously > added. Med > venlig hilsen, > -Theodore > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-dk mailing list > Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk > -- Niels Elgaard Larsen _______________________________________________ Talk-dk mailing list Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk
