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 <movingho...@gmail.com> 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 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 most routing applications, so a > combination can be useful. > > Conversely, I've seen urban projects on OSM where a large collection > of footways have been added to aid pedestrians. The sheer abundance > removed some of the doubt I just mentioned though this is a > controversial approach in that it can look incredibly messy if care is > not given to the amount of ways running parallel. It also a rather > luxurious addition that can take low priority given that most urban > highways are assumed to have some form of footway neighbouring them. > > VictorIE correctly pointed out that OSM is a connection of joined up > roads. A dominant use of OSM is for driving and the streets are the > primary feature (the clue's in the name). It's essential that this use > is adhered to for applications that provide directions and similar > services. His own reason for the sporadic footways I'd seen in areas I > was working on were to ensure roads were joined correctly for these > services. The technicalities of this are not my forté but I would have > thought there were other means to link roads for routing purposes. I > also assumed that a routing application would not realise that a > highway joining another highway was traversable only because a footway > linked the two. (Amendment: Although OSM is a connection of joined up > roads, I'd like to question that principle as it grows. For example, > in rural parts of the country ther are many former donkey tracks that > are invaluable for hikers. Many of these have overgrown in parts to > the point that they do not exist in any form in sections. The sections > that do remain are increidbly useful on a map but would be misleading > and potentially dangerous if they are connected on OSM.) > > I originally discussed the issue with VictorIE after a footway added > to a traffic island struck me as a particularly dangerous spot to > cross at. There were no markings or designated footway in real life so > I removed it out of worry. After he reinstated it I got in touch to > figure this where he explained his reasons relating to routing. There > was also a suggestion that doing so helped unclutter diagnostic tools. > Again, in my opinion, I would give preference to solving problems with > day to day usage of the map rather than solving problems on diagnostic > tools. The latter should (and mostly does) aid in solving the first > but should not be the target themselves if not confident it aids all > day to day usage. > > Examples: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=53.38877&mlon=-6.07409#map=19/53.38877/-6.07409 > There are now two footways extending northwards off the looping > driveway in front of the train station, to connect it to the footway > running parellel against the station entrance. For routing, I see few > issues as there's no wall blocking where they're drawn. Visually, they > suggest to me that there is a designated way to walk here where there > isn't. The left-most one is typically blocked by cars as it's a > parking space. The right-most one is a dangerous spot to cross as it's > a busy, wide road. There's a designated crossing-space further west > from it that wasn't marked on the map. > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=53.37103&mlon=-6.20664#map=19/53.37103/-6.20664 > As mentioned earlier. There is no designated pedestrian area where the > footway's drawn. The traffic island is occasionally used by > pedestrians but the way drawn is (in my opinion, I live nearby) a > lethal part to cross as cars swing around the blind corner quite fast > sometimes. Most people cross further up Collins Avenue (where there's > still no designated crossing) when they've experienced a few near > misses and often avoid the traffic island. > > I cannot see the sense in OSM working in such a way that this solves a > routing issue at the detriment of visually reading the map (in any > renderer). > > By the way, the fact that these little footways keep popping up just > after I add new roads clearly indicates I'm doing something that is > annoying diagnostic tools. I get no validation errors and the nodes > are joined correctly. What should I be doing in terms of routing > validation to stop annoying those who take the time to check for these > errors on diagnostic tools (amendment: or are this particular error > redundant as it's encouraging visual mapping difficulties?) > > > Thanks, > > Conor > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ie mailing list > Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie > _______________________________________________ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
