[talk-ch] Semantics through abstraction (Re: Pls, don't delete sidewalks, visual impaired people might use them)

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Fri Aug 25 10:51:12 CEST 2017



Am 25.08.2017 um 00:08 schrieb Raphael Das Gupta (das-g):
>
> In what I assumed up today to be the consensus, there are two cases
> when sidewalks should already now be drawn separately:
>
>  1. (as already mentioned) when separated from the street by space
>     (i.e., not actually laterally connected to the street)
>  2. when separated from the street by a barrier (e.g. as seen here
>     <https://www.openstreetcam.org/details/8505/3981> on the
>     right-hand side)
>
> In all other cases, for the time being, the presence (or absence) of
> sidewalks should indeed be represented by additional tags on the
> street's way rather than dedicated ways for the sidewalks, and I'm not
> even sure whether we should pursue
>
>
That is fine and dandy, but in reality, particularly in busy central
city areas which are likely the most important for pedestrian routing,
the case is not so clear cut. You can essentially zoom randomly to any
Swiss city and the sidewalks will be at the curb for a couple of meters
then there will be parking lots, then a bus stop, street furniture,
grass and then perhaps nothing for another piece, all on just one side
of a 100m stretch of road. Switching back and forward between mapping
schemes on the same "segment" is going to be disastrous from a routing pov.

Simon 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/pipermail/talk-ch/attachments/20170825/e4b951a8/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/pipermail/talk-ch/attachments/20170825/e4b951a8/attachment.sig>


More information about the talk-ch mailing list