I just wanted to give you another argument for mapping separate sidewalks (although navigation software might not like it)
m
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Andreas Bürki abuerki@anidor.com wrote:
Am 24.08.2017 um 21:56 schrieb Marc Gemis:
I'm not pretty sure, if this is a "OSM problem", as we can only map, what we see and add given tags. - Or, how other maps solve the issue?
Maybe the routing software has to become smarter...
to quote imagico (http://blog.imagico.de/social-engineering-in-openstreetmap/)
"So if – as a mapper – you want to really support and encourage competent data use better ignore any assumed interests of data users and map as you as a mapper can most efficiently represent your observations on the ground in data form."
this might very well apply in this situation, so when you can better tag a sidewalk with a separate line, why not ?
Ehm, maybe I didn't understand you correctly, but this is exactly what I always tried to do:
Separate sidewalk with minimum tagging like this:
highway=footway footway=sidewalk
or for crosswalk (pedestrian/zebra crossing)
highway=footway footway=crossing
and if I don't forget I add the surfeace, e.g. surface:asphalt
And I do this as well for bridges, see Nydeggbrücke or Kirchenfeldbrücke
cheeers, h.
m. _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
--
Andreas Bürki
abuerki@anidor.com S/MIME certificate - SHA-256 fingerprint: 8A:1A:C2:93:10:4B:CE:91:2C:80:79:44:24:1D:38:CA:EE:0E:89:C9:A5:A4:A0:03:FF:5A:FB:D1:15:18:B5:45 GnuPG - GPG fingerprint: 5DA7 5F48 25BD D2D7 E488 05DF 5A99 A321 7E42 0227 _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch