From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

"Connecting ways" section needs redrafting

Connecting ways

The following text is pretty unintelligible. What does it mean precisely?

Note that by default, nor footway=sidewalk or footway=crossing will either be rendered, nor taken for autorouting for any other mean of transport but pedestrian.
All ways that connect to the pedestrian crossing should therefore also connect to the main street (also highway=footway and highway=path). If you don't connect them to the main street, then add bicycle=dismount to indicate that autorouters for cyclists have to consider this way (and tell the cyclist to push his bike).
Note that for a non-sidewalk highway=footway and bicycle=no way, autorouters will assume that pushing your bicycle is possible - if then there is no connection to the next street, you break that.

I suggest redrafting this as

By default, neither footway=sidewalk nor footway=crossing on their own are sufficient for rendering or routing. To make the ways display on the map, add highway=footway. This also makes routing engines consider them for routing by foot.
Nope, that is plain wron. Of course it is sufficient for rendering. But it won't be rendered on the most popular renderers. That's all. If a renderer/maintainer wants to support it, then it is fully sufficient. Same goes for routing. DO NOT ADD highway=footway to it. That completly havocs this tag. --Extremecarver (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
For routing purposes, the ways should connect the two adjacent footways; there should be a continuous linked path from one side of the road to the other. If there is a logical highway=crossing node representing the crossing, it should be a member of both the footway=crossing way and the way describing the road being crossed.

I have omitted mentioning bikes being routed down sidewalks because this is illegal in the UK, but legal in the US. It's country-specific, and can be derived from the type of way and access tags anyway. --achadwick 14:05, 22 June 2011 (BST)

I think that sounds much better, I had difficulty understanding the original as well. Agreed about bikes, though I'm no authority in that area, as I don't even have a bike! -- Joshdoe 15:03, 22 June 2011 (BST)
Well but this is especially about bikes. If you use sidewalk tag on top, the assumption is that there is a suitable alternative for cylists. However often this is not the case, and mappers assume the cyclist to either push (this should be allowed anywhere) or just cycle a few meters on the sidewalk. So this has to be considered for ways where there is no alternative and normal footways though often not usable for cyclists, have to be considered at very low priority for routing cylists. Hence if you use sidewalk tag on a footway, note that such ways will neither be shown NOR used at all for cycling (as it would add too much clutter). This therefore means that real non sidewalk footways connecting have to have bicycle information until they touch the next street (in the form of bicycle=dismount). The above proposal completly drops this fact. it has nothing to do with the previous text and is absolutely logical (as by definition) and not needed at all to be mentioned.--Extremecarver 22:02, 23 June 2011 (BST)
I don't quite understand what you're saying. Do you support dropping the final paragraph, or would you like it to be reworded? All it's really saying is that potential direct routes need to be connected somehow, but that is is always the case in OSM. The fact you can push a bike down an otherwise untagged footway is true, and is bourne out by the routing engines I've seen, but I don't think it needs to be mentioned for crossings. It's more important to state when a bike can be *ridden* across a foot crossing. --achadwick 10:41, 24 June 2011 (BST)


Does the writer of this article live in a place where you must dismount when crossing a road in a crosswalk? This is definitely not the case in the U.S.; if sidewalk cycling is legal a cyclist has the same rights in a crosswalk, and even where sidewalk cycling is illegal (per local law) one can stay on where a separate-right-of-way path crosses a road. --NE2 15:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Content removed from article

This phrase was in the main article within 'no-wiki' tagging. I am moving it here to keep the article source cleaner

All the values listed in crossing=* and crossing_ref=* are acceptable. # dubious. The crossing is already mapped as a separate note with these on it. Don't duplicate information please.

-- PeterIto (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

does footway=crossing imply cycling=yes?

-- SwiftFast (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

generally don't count on implications, be explicit. footway=crossing is a subtag for footways and has the same implications as other footways. --Dieterdreist (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I see. I ask because it appears many crosswalks worldwide are tagged "highway=footway, footway=crossing" with no explicit cycling tag, yet in reality most crosswalks are accessible by bikes. So there appears to be a discrepancy that might confuse some bike navigation apps, unless cycling=yes is being implied. -- SwiftFast (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I would generally add bicycle=yes if cycling is legally permitted. In Germany cycling on footway crossings is generally forbidden (you might push your bike which will make you a pedestrian), unless it is also a cycleway crossing, in which case usually bicycle=yes is added or the crossing is also tagged as highway=cycleway. In the southern parts of central Italy and in southern Italy, bicycle is always and almost everywhere permissive (while it is legally forbidden, this is not enforced, but of course if an accident happened you would be in a weak position). In northern Italy the situation is more similar to Germany. The way incomplete tagging is evaluated by applications will vary from one app to the other (might also depend on the country), that's why I would suggest to be explicit in any case, so you are on the safe side. --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)