Proposed features/Sidewalk as separate way

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
The Feature Page for the approved proposal Sidewalk as separate way is located at Tag:footway=sidewalk.
Sidewalk
Status: Approved (active)
Proposed by: Hanska
Tagging: footway=sidewalk
Rendered as: highway=footway
Drafted on: 2011-03-24
RFC start: 2011-03-24
Vote start: 2011-04-12
Vote end: 2011-04-26

Definition

From the Wikipedia article for sidewalk:

A sidewalk (or pavement, footpath, footway, and sometimes platform) is a path along the side of a road. A sidewalk may accommodate moderate changes in grade (height) and is normally separated from the vehicular section by a curb (British spelling: kerb). There may also be a strip of vegetation, grass or bushes or trees or a combination of these between the pedestrian section and the vehicular section (known as a parkway/tree lawn in the United States).

The term footway has a different meaning in the OSM community, but otherwise this should be a sufficient definition for our purpose.

Rationale

In some areas, sidewalks have been mapped as highway=footway, however this does not indicate that the footway is specifically a sidewalk, in other words that it is associated with a road. This proposal offers a refinement to the highway=footway tag, but does not change the definition, which will ensure correctness even for software which doesn't understand this proposal.

Tagging

Sidewalks should be mapped as ways (separate from the road) with the following tags:

Crossings

When a highway=crossing node is present on the main road, a way connecting the sidewalks on the two sides of the road should be mapped. Not to override the well-established meaning of highway=crossing, this way should be tagged as follows:

Additionally, if the crossing is also for bicycles, you should add cycleway=crossing (note if cyclists have to dismount to use the crossing use cycleway=crossing & bicycle=dismount

When no crossing is marked, but it's common to cross the street at that point, crossing=unmarked should be used at the intersection between the sidewalk and the street. Most of the times this should be used on minor, low-traffic roads.

Cycleways

This proposal is compatible with the current cycleway=* tagging scheme. The only difference is for crossings; see above.

Applies to

The proposed tagging applies to Way ways.

Rendering

The sidewalks would be rendered as highway=footways, but a renderer could also specially treat footway=sidewalk.

(Pedestrian) Routing

This tagging will be fully supported by Look and Listen Map.

Features/Pages affected

This proposal would further refine:

Related tags and proposals

While not part of this proposal, these are related existing and proposed tagging schemes that may be of interest to users of this proposal.

Sloped kerbs

If there are sloped kerbs (sloped curbs, ramps) going down/up (mainly to ease wheelchair access) between the sidewalks and the road, consider using the proposed amenity=sloped_curb (proposal here), or kerb=* (proposal), or other similar tags where appropriate.

Relation

There are proposals suitable for linking the sidewalks and the main road with a relation. associatedStreet, or the proposed street relations are possible candidates. The sidewalks could be added with role sidewalk.

Comments

For comments, please use the discussion page, or send a post to the tagging mailing list.

Voting

Please use {{vote|yes}} and {{vote|no}} to vote. If you {{vote|no}}, please remember to give a comment, so that we can improve the proposal!

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Hanska 08:12, 12 April 2011 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Alessioz 09:46, 12 April 2011 (BST)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. -- as said before: why highway=footway? If this proposal would have been to use only footway=sidewalk or highway=sidewalk I would have voted yes. The tag highway=footway should be used for independent footways (footways where it is not possible to cross the street at any place). -- Dieterdreist 09:51, 12 April 2011 (BST)
Martin, in my opinion a sidewalk is a footway. footway=sidewalk is a refinement tag IMHO. I'm not going to change that part of the proposal, so thanks for voting no :) --Hanska 10:05, 12 April 2011 (BST)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. -- This proposal is complex to execute properly (with a new relation type, etc.), has no tool support (or plans by tool providers to support), and the basic functionality (without the relation) is already covered by the existing highway=footway tag. --Emacsen 11:46, 12 April 2011 (BST)
Sorry, there's no new relation involved. The proposal suggests to use the well established type=associatedStreet relation, or the proposed type=street. There's no specific sidewalk-relation. --Hanska 12:13, 12 April 2011 (BST)
The associatedStreet tag is for addressing. That's what it says on its tag page. If you use it for something other than addressing, you're changing the meaning, and you never explicitly say that in this proposal, nor have you made a proposal to change the relation. --Emacsen 01:53, 13 April 2011 (BST)
  • I veto this proposal. -- same reason as Dieterdreist. Please, make clear that the sidewalk is part of the street by not using a highway=*. You would have to change the meaning of highway=footway to get sidewalk into a subgroup of it. --Skyper 14:48, 12 April 2011 (BST)
Which meaning is that? Let's take this to the talk page. Alv 15:50, 12 April 2011 (BST)
No, highway=footway would still have the same meaning, i.e. "designated footpaths, i.e. mainly/exclusively for pedestrians". A "sidewalk" has the only additional feature of being paired to a road, that's why footway=sidewalk would be a refinement tag. Also, since when it's possible to veto a proposed feature? --Hanska 15:40, 12 April 2011 (BST)

  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I really like the idea of using a separate way for sidewalks, and I would try implementing them in osm2world once I have some spare time, but I fear that using highway=footway for these causes unnecessary controversy that could be avoided by using a separate tag. --Tordanik 15:46, 12 April 2011 (BST)
Thanks for your comment. What tag would you use? --Hanska 15:47, 12 April 2011 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Still not perfectly happy with highway=footway, but there are no convincing alternatives either. --Tordanik 21:28, 14 April 2011 (BST)
Can you please expand (here) why a separate tag is needed? Thanks --Hanska 20:08, 12 April 2011 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Pizzak 20:18, 12 April 2011 (BST)

  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Good idea, but badly done! The tag highway=path for sidewalks and footways, which are not hiking trails, should be deprecated! Thanks to the former "path"-proposal everything messes up now. For a clean migratiion, there should only be an add-on tag (e.g. only sidewalk=* or at least other ways such as highway=cycleway should be also allowed with highway=*. I would like to see a good replacement to end the highway=fottway/path-problem --Fabi2 20:59, 12 April 2011 (BST)
I don't understand, what does highway=path have to do with this proposal? And the additional tag is described in this proposal, it's footway=sidewalk. Maybe you wanted to vote yes? ;) --Hanska 21:08, 12 April 2011 (BST)
  • I am indifferent to this proposal. There may be definition issues, with sidewalks without a kerb in e.g. a pedestrian-like street. This will not work, for what I thought, the folks which made it, may have it intended. Traffic islands in the middle of the street, are only one problem, as they fall not under your sidewalk definition. I overlooked the real intention first, but thought this as a advanced replacement for highway=footway/path. --Fabi2 22:17, 12 April 2011 (BST)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --amai 22:45, 12 April 2011 (BST)
Can you please give a comment why you're opposing? Thanks. --Hanska 17:40, 13 April 2011 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --higa4 08:34, 13 April 2011 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Joshdoe 16:52, 13 April 2011 (BST)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Proposed_features/Sidewalk seems simple for sidewalks adjacent to roads and using the existing footpath tagging should be fine for when the footpath diverges and is a separate way. --EdLoach 17:03, 13 April 2011 (BST)
Ed, this proposal permits finer details, and is not in contrast with the one you pointed to. How do you handle pedestrian routing with the "tagging the main road" method? --Hanska 17:39, 13 April 2011 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Antonino 1947, 13 April 2011
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Mikalaari 19:06, 13 April 2011 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Kaitu 10:56, 14 April 2011 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Vezzo 16:50, 14 April 2011 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Magellanino 20:42, 14 April 2011 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Kiwi 12:46, 16 April 2011 (BST)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Proposed_features/Sidewalk looks fine to me for normal roads. Routing handles fine when I've used cloudmades router for planning walks. Where a barrier exists or footpath diverges from road then use highway=footway. Can't see a need to make things more complex.--Pobice 01:03, 18 April 2011 (BST)
But this is a separate way tagged highway=footway, with an additional tag (footway=sidewalk) to indicate that it is associated with a road. I think we need to add some photos and mapped examples, because at least half the opposed votes are from misunderstandings. -- Joshdoe 01:46, 18 April 2011 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. There are places where I think it is important to map the sidewalk as a separate way. Sometimes just so it can look right, but sometimes it is needed for proper routing. For example, the foot bridge here: [[1]] connecting to the big bridge. On the bridge is car lanes, then a bike lane, then a low guard rail, then a sidewalk. You cannot get from the top of the foot bridge to the bike lane without stopping and lifting your bike over the guard rail. It makes a lot of sense to bike up the footbridge (it goes up from the bike path) and it's questionable whether it's cool to bike on the sidewalk. On nice days, it's impractical anyway, you want to be in the bike lane to get by all the people. -- JasonWoof 02:33, 18 April 2011 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Gianfra 18 April 2011
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Remixtj 13:37, 18 April 2011 (BST)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. -- Rw 15:20, 19 April 2011 (BST)
Can you please give your reasons for voting against this? -- Joshdoe 15:29, 19 April 2011 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Arlas 20:50, 21 April 2011 (BST)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. And do not ask for reasons. Adjuva 21:53, 21 April 2011 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Sidewalk is a kind of a footway, so it is good to tag it with a generic tag (highway=footway) combined with a specifying tag (footway=sidewalk); a render can choose whether to use the specifying tag or just the generic one. --Surly 18:57, 24 April 2011 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. ----EdH 12:40, 25 April 2011 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. ----Sjbarbeau 19:31, 25 April 2011 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Anne.ghisla 21:32, 25 April 2011 (BST)
  • Voting period has ended.

Results

Criteria needed for approval: 8 unanimous approval votes or 15 total votes with a majority approval.

  • Total votes: 30
  • Approve: 20
  • Oppose: 9
  • Abstain: 1

Required number of votes for a majority based on total votes of 30 is 16. The feature is approved.

See also