a-b-street / a-b-street/speedwalk

Handle informal sidepath

Aperta
#88 0 commenti 0 reazioni 0 assegnatari Vedi su GitHub
Lingua principale
Svelte
Stelle
24
Fork
5
Metriche di merge delle PR
Nessuna PR unita negli ultimi 30g

Descrizione

This is just to document the case. I don't have an suggestion on how to handle this; nor do I think it's important to handle now.

---

Sometimes there are informal sidewalks next to a road.
If those are mapped, marking them as `informal=yes` (DE: Trampelpfad) is a feasable tagging.

I am not clear on what the right `sidewalk`-value be in this case. It seems similar to the situation of https://trafficsigns.osm-verkehrswende.org/DE?signs=DE:239,1022-10 where bikes are allowed to use the (pedestrian) sidewalk (at walking speed) but this is not considered bike infra so it still gets a cycleway:SIDE=no on the centerline.

For the sake of routing, it would be better to recognize those `informal=yes` "`is_sidepath`" as some kind of infra and not generate a virtual sidewalk.

---

Examples

* https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1007134506/history
(Note I just changed the tagging to improve it a bit: better highway class `footway` but especially `is_sidepath`)
Image
* There are more cases in this general area where the "sidewalk" is a dirt path
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4935223 In this case someone marked them as `sidewalk=both`
Image

Guida per i contributori

Nessuna guida per i contributori indicizzata per questo repository

Valutazione

Questa issue non è ancora stata valutata.

Ricevi le nuove issue nella tua casella

Un breve riepilogo di issue GitHub adatte ai principianti.