Proposal talk:Continuous Sidewalk

Discussion on Tagging Mailling list

Here is the first discussion on the Tagging Mailling List : https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-January/050557.html --Florimondable (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Tag the length

"To tag the length of the continuous sidewalk you can use the same tag on the way of the road and the footway from the start to the end of the crossing." a. I think this could do with a drawing! b. You explained how this was NOT a crossing. Have you changed your mind? --Peter Elderson (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

a. yes, propositions are welcome :)

b. No I didn't change my mind, I think this can be usefull mostly for the road in order to say how long the car have to cross the sidewalk. For the sidewalk way (footway) I agree this is an approximation since there is no precise begin and end limit, though it can be also usefull to know how long a pedestrian can risk to encounter a motor vehicle.

--Florimondable (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Layout of the junction

"This tag implies the layout of the junction..." If the sidewalk is not drawn as a footway, the node is not a junction I think? --Peter Elderson (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you can add the node in the middle of the continuous sidewalk on the road way which cross the sidewalk, even if there is no independent sidewalk way. It's ok for vehicle router, though for pedestrian routing it not easy to consume the data. --Florimondable (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Different options: when to use?

a. It is not clear to me when the different options should be used, and on what feature/section exactly. b. The case of the roundabout junction, is that any different? --Peter Elderson (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Wording

"A continuous sidewalk (or blended crossing) is a junction between a sidewalk and a road where vehicles have to run on the sidewalk to pass from one side of the road to the other." I think this is not very clear. I would say: "A continuous sidewalk crossing (or blended crossing) is an intersection of a sidewalk and a crossroad where vehicles have to cross the sidewalk to continue.--Peter Elderson (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you. --Florimondable (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

What do you actually propose?

"The easiest way..." .... "for more detail..." does not sound like a clear proposal. Also it is not clear if these are alternative options (either... or) or always the node and optionally additional details. If it is the latter, I would suggest to change Junction to Basic tagging, and For more detail to Additional tagging. Then I would suggest to be clear about the two situations: a. If the sidewalk is present in OSM as a way, then add continuous_sidewalk=yes to the intersection node of the crossroad and the sidewalk. b. If sidewalk is not present as a way, then add a node on the way of the crossroad at the intersection with the imaginary center line of the continuous sidewalk. Then add continuous_sidewalk=yes to the node.

For additional tagging the distinction is even more important. As described now, it is not clear to me which way is actually tagged with what. E.g. if there is no sidewalk way in OSM, do you tag the crossing section of the main road with continuous_sidewalk=yes? Wouldn't you then have to specify :right, :left or :both? Or do you tag the sidewalk-crossing section of the crossroad with continuous_sidewalk=yes? And if there is a mapped sidewalk way, do you propose to tag the section crossing the crossroad with continuous_sidewalk=yes? If so, where exactly should this begin and end, e.g. if the crossroad also has sidewalks which are not mapped as separate ways? This should be clear from the proposal text.

(I'm just trying to get it clear, not to give you a hard time! I myself would probably just do the basic node tagging just for the pedestrian part. Continuous cycleway does not give or imply any reliable information for routing or rendering, I think.) --Peter Elderson (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, it's not proper proposal, it's draft I invite people to try and give feed back.

For the moment I use almost always continuous_sidewalk=yes on the intersection node, that's quick and easy.

I added JOSM snapshot and explanation of how to map. --Florimondable (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

If it is not even a formal proposal in draft stage yet, you should put this page under your user as a subpage, like this User:Kovposch/test. This would be clearer as being your to-be-proposal that's not ready for review, instead of having a Wiki article that looks like a thought-after suggestion. (I disagree with it, and would like to see you comment on kerb=* first.) -- Kovposch (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I created that page to document the tags. Proposal submission is administration stuff in which I don't want to spent time and energy, and I don't believe much in it. I prefer to let people try, use and discuss the tagging.

Why introducing a new key?

Why is an entirely new key added here? This adds complexity to data consuming and editing.

I would rather see this fitted to an existing scheme. There is a consecution of increasing crossing visibility:
crossing=unmarked -> crossing=marked -> (crossing=zebra where this is used) -> crossing=continuous_sidewalk.
This would simplify a lot. Often intersecting ways are connected using a highway=crossing without further survey (iD even does that automatically). Other users would only need to extend this information with additional tags based on proven workflows, rather than completely re-tagging this thing.

Another approach would be using the crossing:island=*-scheme, i.e. crossing:continuous_sidewalk=*

Last but not least, using one of those would probably increase the adoption of this tag by both mappers and data consumers, since it appears prominently on often-visited wiki pages. --BS97n (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Because crossing is orthogonal to having a continuous sidewalk or not. For instance you can have a continuous sidewalk with a crossing=zebra on it. For instance https://www.google.fr/maps/@48.893045,2.3276706,3a,75y,122.58h,68.05t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8pV7xdFrHjwr-loQwy0Bqw!2e0!5s20180401T000000!7i16384!8i8192

--Florimondable (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

That's an argument for using crossing:continuous_sidewalk=* instead of crossing=continuous_sidewalk, but not for using an entirely new scheme. crossing:island=* was introduced for the same reason. However, the same applies for zebra, marked and traffic_signals: Crossings with traffic signals are often also marked, sometimes they even have zebra markings. --BS97n (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I remember why I didn't use crossing : "Crossing key is defined as such «This tag is used for more accurately describing specific types of pedestrian crossings across roads» Continuous sidewalk is a sidewalk, so pedestrian don't cross a road but a sidewalk, so crossing key cannot be applied.". Though today I think we could alter a little the definition of crossing to fit for continuous sidewalk/cycleway.--Florimondable (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, using one of the attempts mentioned would make it possible to drop the word "sidewalk". For Example crossing:coninuous=yes. paths, cycleways and maybe even bridleways can have continuous crossings, too, which are a bit strange to be tagged using the word "sidewalk" --BS97n (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure, what if we have a continuous sidewalk but not a continuous cycleway ? --Florimondable (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)