On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Nicolás Alvarez <nicolas.alva...@gmail.com > wrote:
> > El 12 mar 2016, a las 04:18, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> escribió: > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Janko Mihelic <janko.mihe...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> pet, 11. ožu 2016. 21:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> je >> napisao: >> >>> >>> what about the pavement/sidewalk, shall it be included? If yes, what is >>> a lane there, e.g. when there are (partially) physical separations? >>> >>> >> No, I wouldn't include sidewalks. You could argue that sidewalks are >> just another lane, but there is a difference. The moment you step on a >> street, you are following rules of a game. Everyone on the street should >> know about each other, and act accordingly. >> Sidewalks are a different story, you can stop and chat there, there are >> no rules. >> >> So even if there are no physical separations, I would never include a >> sidewalk in the lane scheme of a road (except with the sidewalk=* >> attribute). >> > > I'm not a fan of the sidewalk tag on the centerline way; just map the > footways. > > > I see it as simplified tagging. In Buenos Aires almost every road has > sidewalks, and I'm surely not going to draw them all as separate ways. > Adding the sidewalk tag is much easier. I would go as far as saying I would > assume sidewalk=both unless specified otherwise! > I wouldn't. I'm going out on a long-ass limb here, but I'm guessing that rural highways, country roads, mountain roads, alleyways, parking aisles, driveways, and the vast majority of ways that lack a hard surface aren't going to have sidewalks of any kind at all. And this would account for the overwhelming majority of roads. Educated guess based on the American Rockies alone.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk