Proposal talk:Sidepath tagging scheme

no trampling of local consensus

I strongly oppose changing "separate ways or tag on main road may be preferred in different places, depending on local consensus" to "tagging on main road is always preferable in some situation".

Inventing new tags to describe combined and segregated footway and cycleway (both with its own surface) is complicated even in case of using separate way for this structure.

Tagging it on main road, just because on certain distance there is no strip of grass separating it from main road would make necessary to use ridiculous tags. Even in case of long stretches of road, footway and cycleway separated only by curbs tagging it as one element is a poor idea.

In extreme case - there is one place in my city with cycleway between two footways. Cycleway, footways and road are all separated by curbs. Good luck with tagging it as tags on the main road (cycleway:right:central:surface=asphalt?). Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW, in my area there is a recent trend to tag footways and cycleway as separate ways - even in cases of footways and cycleway separated solely by a painted line on surface. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

footway=sidepath?

Note that footway=sidewalk is already widely used (200k+ plus usage, with at least some data consumers using it) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's a big issue. I don't mind using footway=sidewalk on highway=footway (and sidewalk=right/left/both on highway=road). The question I couldn't figrue out is, in what cases highway=footway + footway=sidewalk is actually used on. Just on "near" footways or also on "far" footways. --Hubert87 (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

street relation

The street relation can be used to link a street to adjacent sidewalks. --Peter Mead (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2015‎ (UTC)

It can be used in addition. But even when using GIS technilogy it is way too complicated (or even impossible) to copy data tagged on a sidepath to the main road. Just consider a street where with an sidewalk on one side and a combined bidirectional cycle- and footway or when the sidepaths are spilted due to crossing, change of surface or smoothness, etc. --Hubert87 (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I was just pointing it out in case you were not familiar with this use of the street relation. It would be nice to mention it on this page.

I'm not sure why you mention copying tags from the sidewalk way to the road way, that doesn't sound necessary. The relation would just be used to link the two, indicating that a particular sidewalk is for a particular road. --Peter Mead (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

All fair. I mentioned copying data, because one can't render a central roadway differently in reasonable detail (especially only one border on the right or left of the line) if all you have is a street-relation with 3 carrigeways, 6 sidewalks and 3 cycle tracks in it, as an example. That's why I think it's neccessry to have the data twice, once on the centrals line and as a seperate way. However I'll add a line mentioning the use of a street relation in addtition next week. --Hubert87 (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

sidewalk=separate

Note that it conflicts with sidewalk=separate tag, if this proposal is resurrected it should be at least considered Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)