Tom Chance wrote: > If a pavement/sidewalk deviates significantly, just add a footway / cycleway > / > other way branching off from the main highway as appropriate. If the > pavement/sidewalk is really quite separate, as in your Milton Keynes example > (http://osm.org/go/eu4qDpI_3--) then by all means add extra parallel ways. > > This approach is standard for cycle lanes on the edge of roads, and for cycle > lanes that are quite distinct from roads they run parallel to.
This is exactly what I was advocating elsewhere. The current target in many countries is simply to get the basic infrastructure of towns and roads down, but Milton Keynes IS a good example of where 'footway' forms a considerable 'non-vehicle' set of ways. At some point, the footway element of every road DOES need to be mapped since - as has been indicated - simply tagging a highway as 'residential' does not mean anything in this context? Perhaps a way forward is to redefine highway as vehicleway ( with simple tags for lorry=no, 4wd=yes, etc ) and move any non vehicle tracks to footway. YES there is a problem with 'can you cross the road', but that is something that we simply do not YET have the information to map anyway. I do not like the current way relations are implemented, but a link of some sort combining two footways and a vehicleway into one 'route' does seem the correct way forward, and when you add a dual carriageway situation - and I'm thinking of ones where there is a central barrier/fence - then the correct walkways would link to the correct lane of the dual carriageway, and the pedestrian crossings would then provide the CORRECT cross links? Giving a practical example of where currently pedestrian routing can't be carried out .. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.52986&lon=-0.44605&zoom=17&layers=B000FTF ( I lived in Hewens Road many years ago so know that area ) There is a fence down the middle of the dual carriage way ( the Uxbridge Road ), and a number of pedestrian crossing links which are the safe way across. In micromapping terms, there are several 'sidewalks', the safe ones are on the north side of the white 'service road' along the side of the dual carriageway, and there are actually similar routes missing from the south side of the road. The 'sidewalks' between the various sections of the road - while usable - are in some areas also fenced like the middle of the dual carriageway to prevent people being pushed into the roadway. Generating a pedestrian route from the north to the south of the area displayed - unfortunately I can't give a link to the 'bird's eye view of the junctions - while the roads have links across, pedestrians are expected to go to the nearest crossing point rather than walking in the roadway. ( And the Police WILL have words with people jumping the fences ;) ) My current view of pedestrian routing is 'Can I push a wheelchair or pram' ... Moving to the country - where I am now - many roads do not have any 'sidewalks', so pedestrian routes are on the same way as the vehicles, but even here, there are safer routes for ramblers in some places, and grass verges that offer a refuge, but some tertiary roads are best avoided even if the foot route does take a longer distance! The exact roads I am thinking of would also benefit from 'elevation' information, in providing additional information ( the footpath routes have stairs for long distances! ) 'foot=not recommended' is the best description, and the wheelchair/pram rule certainly closes many roads to pedestrian routing. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
