[OSM-talk] Ways in old mediterranean and similar towns.
Janko Mihelić
Venice: map - photo
San Giminagno: map - photo
Split: map - photo
Budva: map - photo
Dubrovnik: map - photo
Valencia: map - photo
First question is, do you agree that these streets are footpaths, or only some, or do they really fit the definition of a pedestrian highway? Maybe we should invent a new tag?
If you think those are footpaths, should we forcefully change them or is there a better tactic?
Have you had discussions about this topic, what was the conclusion?
Thanks,
Janko Mihelić
SomeoneElse
Mappers in these towns treat ways in old parts of their town as something that can't be a footpath.
Most of those look too wide to be footpaths to me.
Cheers,
Andy
Maarten Deen
> Mappers in these towns treat ways in old parts of their town as
> something that can't be a footpath. For some reason it insults their
> vision of those ways. That's why they tag them as pedestrian highways
> although no cars ever went through them (well, maybe some small delivery
> vehicles). Another reason is that the names of those ways have "street"
From the map_features wiki page:
highway=pedestrian: For roads used mainly/exclusively for
pedestrians/shopping areas. Also for tagging squares and plazas
So why would it be incorrect to map these as pedestrian? The fact that
motorvehicles don't use them has nothing to do with it.
Maarten
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
ta...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
John F. Eldredge
> On 21-3-2012 17:35, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> > Mappers in these towns treat ways in old parts of their town as
> > something that can't be a footpath. For some reason it insults their
> > vision of those ways. That's why they tag them as pedestrian
> highways
> > although no cars ever went through them (well, maybe some small
> delivery
> > vehicles). Another reason is that the names of those ways have
> "street"
>
> From the map_features wiki page:
> highway=pedestrian: For roads used mainly/exclusively for
> pedestrians/shopping areas. Also for tagging squares and plazas
>
> So why would it be incorrect to map these as pedestrian? The fact that
>
> motorvehicles don't use them has nothing to do with it.
>
> Maarten
>
Yes, the definition of "highway" used in OSM covers more than just motor-vehicle routes.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Janko Mihelić
Maarten Deen <md...@xs4all.nl> wrote:Yes, the definition of "highway" used in OSM covers more than just motor-vehicle routes.
> So why would it be incorrect to map these as pedestrian? The fact that
>
> motorvehicles don't use them has nothing to do with it.
>
> Maarten
>
Ok, so whats the difference between a pedestrian highway and a footpath then?
It says "where wide expanses of hard surface are provided", what is the width that separates them?
Janko
Maarten Deen
> 2012/3/21 John F. Eldredge <jo...@jfeldredge.com [2]>
>
>> Maarten Deen <md...@xs4all.nl [1]> wrote:
>> > So why would it be incorrect to map these as pedestrian? The fact
>> that
>> >
>> > motorvehicles don't use them has nothing to do with it.
>> >
>> > Maarten
>> >
>> Yes, the definition of "highway" used in OSM covers more than just
>> motor-vehicle routes.
>
> Ok, so whats the difference between a pedestrian highway and a
> footpath then?
> It says "where wide expanses of hard surface are provided", what is
> the width that separates them?
It's difficult to make a precise definition of course. Some ideas of
mine:
No hard surface: footpath
No houses next to it: footpath
High use: pedestrian
Urban area: pedestrian
The wide expanse is in the sense of a (town) square or a pedestrian
area.
Maarten
Janko Mihelić
It's difficult to make a precise definition of course. Some ideas of mine:
No hard surface: footpath
No houses next to it: footpath
High use: pedestrian
Urban area: pedestrian
The wide expanse is in the sense of a (town) square or a pedestrian area.
Maarten
Maarten Deen
> 2012/3/22 Maarten Deen <md...@xs4all.nl [1]>
>
>> It's difficult to make a precise definition of course. Some ideas
>> of mine:
>> No hard surface: footpath
>> No houses next to it: footpath
>> High use: pedestrian
>> Urban area: pedestrian
>>
>> The wide expanse is in the sense of a (town) square or a pedestrian
>> area.
>>
>> Maarten
>
> Then we should delete the next line from the wiki:
>
> "For small paths which are too small for cars to pass (no real
I agree. I would not use that as as single guideline to use
highway=footway.
In Barcelona I encountered this street:
<http://maps.google.nl/maps?ll=41.380584,2.181439&spn=0.000779,0.001894&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.380584,2.181439&panoid=Z5Al9C_PiNq_MeNrDM36dw&cbp=12,300.97,,0,-0.64>
In OSM it is a highway=pedestrian:
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.380561&lon=2.181011&zoom=18&layers=M>
I would not map this as a footway.
Regards,
Nathan Edgars II
> Ok, so whats the difference between a pedestrian highway and a footpath
> then?
I'm sure everyone has different criteria, but I generally use footway if
it's not a separate right-of-way (meaning it's either a path in a larger
property such as a park, or a sidewalk). highway=pedestrian to me is
something that "looks like a street" (or a 'mini-street'). One problem
is that this covers both 'normal' streets and alleys, which are tagged
differently when open to cars.
Pieren
> I agree. I would not use that as as single guideline to use highway=footway.
>
> In Barcelona I encountered this street:
> <http://maps.google.nl/maps?ll=41.380584,2.181439&spn=0.000779,0.001894&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.380584,2.181439&panoid=Z5Al9C_PiNq_MeNrDM36dw&cbp=12,300.97,,0,-0.64>
In Paris and other french cities, we tag such narrowed "passage" as
highway=footway or highway=path but surely not as highway=pedestrian.
But this discussion might continue on the tagging mailing list.
Pieren
Janko Mihelić
But this discussion might continue on the tagging mailing list.
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of the list. Going there right now.
Janko
Gilles Bassière
> 2012/3/22 Maarten Deen <md...@xs4all.nl>
>
> In Barcelona I encountered this street:
> <http://maps.google.nl/maps?ll=41.380584,2.181439&spn=0.000779,0.001894&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.380584,2.181439&panoid=Z5Al9C_PiNq_MeNrDM36dw&cbp=12,300.97,,0,-0.64>
>
> In OSM it is a highway=pedestrian:
> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.380561&lon=2.181011&zoom=18&layers=M>
> I would not map this as a footway.
>
I understand your position and I somehow agree with you: the usage of
pedestrian/footway/path is not clearly defined at all. It took me a long
time to make sense of these values and I'm aware that other contributors
use it in a (slightly) different manner. A contributor may describe a
way as "footway" while another would describe the same way as
"pedestrian" and there is no rule to decide who is wrong and who is
right...
So, there is no clear definition, agreed. However, in the maps linked
from your original post, I can see a few highway=footway. This basically
means that local contributors did make a difference between pedestrian
streets and footways.
I also feel like there is a difference between pedestrian and footway. I
can't state any clear rule but I usually use 3 values (pedestrian,
footway, path) depending on the context (dense urban, residential or
rural? paved? wide? commercial/business area? low traffic?). I tend to
use very few footways, I'm not sure why. Maybe because our cities are
mostly crowded with cars and ways are usually wide and paved. Maybe
because urban planners tend to eradicate the ways that fit in my
perception of a "footway". Maybe this perception is the result of a
cultural heritage (I live in an old Mediterranean city). The sole thing
that I can say for sure is that I don't "hate" footways :) It is just
that I don't often meet such ways (according to my own perception,
again).
Finally, the debate is more about replacing or not some "imperfect"
tags. Keep in mind that tags have emerged from the community and are
usually the result of a consensus. Should we replace it with a
well-thought tag set? Will it be accepted by the community? No-one can
tell. If you feel like this must be improved, try to make a better
proposal, see how contributors will discuss it, see if it gets voted and
finally used. I think it would be a relevant debate but I remain
doubtful about the issue.
Good luck :)
--
Gilles Bassière - Web/GIS software engineer
http://gbassiere.free.fr/
Elena ``of Valhalla''
> Mappers in these towns treat ways in old parts of their town as something
> that can't be a footpath. For some reason it insults their vision of those
> ways. That's why they tag them as pedestrian highways although no cars ever
> went through them (well, maybe some small delivery vehicles).
Some of those look like potential pedestrian to me: the main criterion
I use is not whether cars have ever used the way but whether
cars could use them if they were legally allowed to do so
(and often they are in some restricted case, such as emergency
veicles and other rare exceptions).
It is not easy to judge from a quick look at the pics, but
at least in some cases I believe that a city car, driven by
a local who knows that the road isn't getting smaller,
could use that street.
In the case of Venice I believe it could be useful to contact
the local mappers; since their situation is quite different
from most other cities they may have a slighty different usage.
--
Elena ``of Valhalla''