Set footway=both / right / left / none deprecated!
I propose to set the tag footway=both/right/left/none deprecated. I recommend to use sidewalk=* instead. It is confusing to use two tags for the same meaning. It is more confusing to declare footway=* as refinement for highway=footway while footway=both/right/left/none is a refinement for highway=(any road). We can simply stop this confusion. --Rudolf 14:50, 17 July 2012 (BST)
- A little late, but I don't agree. We also have highway=cycleway and cycleway=* --Hubert87 (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Footways should always connect
I don't like the advice for not connecting the footways to the road in some circumstances, and don't understand why that has been given. What is the rationale behind that? I would expect that they need to be connected to the road otherwise you can't get anywhere even as a pedestrian. Smsm1 11:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Do not map sidewalks
Honestly, do not map sidewalks as it is suggested by the picture of the description.
- Do you oppose mapping _small_ sidewalks or _any_ sidewalk? --Gorm (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
This would lead to many problems. For example
- you will have to add the name=* to the highway=footway, which is more or less opposed by many mappers.
- in some countries it is not allowed to walk on the street while there is a sidewalk (e.g. Germany StVO § 25 Fußgänger, Absatz 1), which forces you to add something like foot=use_sidepath - which is not yet proposed.
- If routing for a pedestrian, the engine would prefer a footway (wether tagged with sidewalk or not) going paralell to any other road. So you are not _forced_ to put any tag on the paralell street. --Gorm (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- it is hard to connect all the ways, which leads in many cases to the fact that it is hard to determine whether a street goes straight or turns. (this is even harder than what ist described here)--U715371 (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Typically on small sidewalks, yes this scheme can be a bit crowded and wouldn't be necessary. But on larger streets (typically I only draw separate sidewalks on secondary and up), things often get more complicated. Without separate (foot)ways for pedestrians, it would be near impossible to deduct how to navigate complicated intersections. --Gorm (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Is the How to Map Crossings a Violation of the One Entity - One Object Rule
Just posted a similar comment on the highway=crossing discussion page, but also making the comment here, because usage and explanation of usage for the crossing way and nodes is not clear. How much extra help/use is it to place a node on the point where the sidewalk crosses the road? Should I delete the node tags where I see them, or let them be? I'd like to hear from anyone who has evidence one way or the other on this issue. I think that the wiki pages for both highway=crossing and Key:footway should be clearer on this issue.--IanVG (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dcrossing#Is_Including_a_Node_and_Way_for_Crossing_Violation_of_One_Entity-_One_Object_Rule for my reply. To avoid duplicating discussion I will not repeat it here Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)