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

Raphael Das Gupta lists.openstreetmap.ch at raphael.dasgupta.ch
Fri Aug 25 13:46:38 CEST 2017

Hi Simon

On 25.08.2017 10:51, Simon Poole wrote:
> 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.

What is your suggestion or recommendations for these areas, then? Can
you give a rule of thumb or a pointer to such an area that in your
opinion is mapped well and (mostly) correctly?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/pipermail/talk-ch/attachments/20170825/37975a5f/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the talk-ch mailing list