At first I did not understand, form the terms alone, what this tag was supposed to map: Cyclists have to use the sidewalk? After reading a bit:
Perhaps I’d have learned more quickly if the tag was termed cycleway=sideride, side_walk_ implies pushing the bike to me, both from the literal meaning, and from local legislation.
On a shared use path, cycleway=sideride should merrily congregate with footway=sidewalk.
But this is exactly what is_sidepath is for.
footway=sidewalk as a refinement of highway=footway is perfectly legitimate and a completely different use case than the one we’re discussion here, and should be kept out of the count. The 5M is probably more in the K’s if you want to make a relevant comparison to the other tags.
Just a quick question, and please don’t take this is me telling you what you think or being sarcastic: do you see “sidewalk” as being “something that’s on the side of a road” and nothing else?
Yes the vast majority the 5M footway=sidewalk are combined with highway=footway so it’s reasonable to exclude that tag for the sake of comparison. With highway=footway excluded we get:
46K footway=sidewalk. (overpass)
13.5K is_sidepath=yes (overpass)
7K cycleway=sidewalk (overpass)
Excluding highway=footway cuts down the usage of is_sidepath=yes a fair amount. Its total usage is 25K but this number is more appropriately compared to the full count for footway=sidewalk. (overpass)
No I would say it’s more specific than that. It’s a walkway or path on the side of the road for pedestrians. I would not consider a bicycle only or horse only path (no pedestrians allowed) along side a road to be a sidewalk. I do consider a shared use pedestrian and bicycle path on the side of a road to be a sidewalk because it is for pedestrians despite also being for bicycles.
Would you consider this to be the case even if the sidepath is part of a named trail, considering that sidewalks rarely have names unto themselves?
Excluding highway=footway doesn’t make much sense, since this is an explicit use case for is_sidepath. It can’t be compared to the full count for footway=sidewalk because, as I wrote before, footway=sidewalk is a defined refinement of highway=footway.
To me it seems that footway=sidewalk as a refinement of highway=footway is something we do not have a common understanding of, hence my previous question of your understanding of sidewalk. The way I read you, it seems to me that you think of footway=sidewalk as something independent of highway=footway.
Hi, I live in France and I recognize my use of cycleway=sidewalk in the description below:
This seems to me essential for mapping layouts that are often not the best…
When a bike ends up on a raised sidewalk, it causes a lot of inconvenience (especially the kerbs at each crossing).
A road layout like this : Panoramax OSM-FR
Is far less qualitative than this kind of cycle path : Panoramax OSM-FR
And thanks to overpass turbo, you’ll soon know which road will be the least pleasant to take : overpass turbo - map
I hope the meaning of my words won’t be too distorted - translated with Deepl.
The problem is that this meaning of cycleway=sidewalk is not documented and so only a small amount of other mapper and data user will interpret it in the same way as you.
Second problem - it is also not clear what a sidewalk is: does it require a kerb and and must be located directly next to the road?
My understanding has always been, that footway=sidewalk can be used on ways other than highway=footway in order to refer to the pedestrian part of a shared use path. I don’t consider it a refinement of highway=footway.
footway=sidewalk is documented to be used on highway=footway and highway=path with foot=designated, or highway=construction with construction=footway/path.
And from the syntax (footway=) it is a refinement of the highway=footway
Tag:footway=sidewalk - OpenStreetMap Wiki
Proposal:Sidewalk as separate way - OpenStreetMap Wiki
From Wikipedia:
A sidewalk (American English pavement (British English) footpath in Australia, India, New Zealand and Ireland, or footway is a path along the side of a road. Usually constructed of concrete, pavers, brick, stone, or asphalt, it is designed for pedestrians. A sidewalk is normally higher than the roadway, and separated from it by a kerb. There may also be a planted strip between the sidewalk and the roadway and between the roadway and the adjacent land.
In some places, the same term may also be used for a paved path, trail or footpath that is not next to a road, such as a path through a park.
I’d add to this that tagging a sidewalk/pavement on a common line with a cycleway – or a carriageway – is done with sidewalk:=, not footway=sidewalk.
Tagging a sidewalk/pavement on a common line with a cycleway – or a carriageway for that matter – is done with sidewalk:*=*, not footway=sidewalk.
I was referring to using it on the sidewalk itself, not to the carriageway it’s a sidewalk of.
So footway=sidewalk is valid in highway=footway, and highway=path, maybe even on highway=cycleway (if you add foot=designated), but certainly not highway=primary 
Half my point was that a cycleway with a sidewalk/pavement is conceptually the same as a carriageway with a sidewalk/pavement. Consistent tagging would be to use sidewalk:*=* on both, like the wiki says.
Perhaps if your mental model is that carriageway + pavement means the pavement is an addendum/inferior to the carriageway, whereas cycleway + pavement means both are equal, using footway=sidewalk makes sense? I can’t fully grasp either one, so this is just speculation.
You’re talking past each other. I’m sure @Nadjita knows when to use sidewalk.
sidewalk=* describes a side path next to the path that has the tag on it. It can not be combined with highway=footway. (a footway with a sidewalk)
Especially the Netherlands like the concept of highway=cycleway with sidewalk=*. (otherwise it is modeled via segregated)
footway=* refines the the path itself. A “footway” may be tagged as highway=footway or highway=path + foot=designated and some people also want to consider highway=cycyleway + foot=designated as footway
Some mappers use footway=sidewalk only on highway=footway but may adapt the key to the type of path (path=sidewalk, cycleway=sidewalk)
Maybe? I don’t see why not, but I suppose I’d need to see an example.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that. I included both the full count and with highway=footway excluded so you can compare however you like. Either way, usage of footway=sidewalk is more widespread in raw numbers and in geographic distribution.
I also used to think that footway=sidewalk was only a refinement of highway=footway. However, investigating actual usage in the database reveals broader usage. Mappers have combined footway=sidewalk with highway=path, highway=steps, highway=platform, and highway=cycleway. One interpretation could be that these are all tagging errors, but the examples I’ve checked look like sidewalks to me. If I was making a map highlighting sidewalks, I would include all of these combinations[1]. It wouldn’t really matter to me that the wiki hasn’t documented them all. So it’s not that I personally think footway=sidewalk should or should not be independent of highway=footway, it’s just that these combinations currently exist and I would interpret them as sidewalks.
I would also probably interpret some combinations with is_sidepath=yes as sidewalks, but that would get a little more complicated as I wouldn’t want to include ways where pedestrians are not allowed. So I’d need to look at access tagging as well for these. ↩︎
I guess the question is: if it’s a sidewalk, can it also be a highway=cycleway?
If the answer is yes: Can a highway=primary also be footway=sidewalk?
In use doesn’t make it logical, understandable, or formally correct.
I’ve had a look at some random samples of combination with highway=cycleway from Europe. I see:
highway=cycleway + footway=sidewalk instead of – or possibly in addition to – sidewalk=left|right”Of course I can’t know what people were thinking. These are my guesses at their conscious or subconscious reasoning.
I consider all of these tagging errors.
footway=sidewalk conveys imprecise information when sidewalk=* is more correct.footway=sidewalk is correct.None of these random samples are meaningful combinations of highway=cycleway and footway=sidewalk. Their existence don’t prove a value in this type of tagging.
For example, the Lunken Loop is a bike–hike trail that follows streets along half of its length. It joins Wilmer Avenue at the following intersection, becoming a sidepath. How can we tell it’s a sidepath? It’s much wider than a typical sidewalk and comes with dedicated signage such as stop signs, yet it remains as accessible to the street as a sidewalk, not like the walkway to the east, included for comparison.
By contrast, the Simon Kenton Trail follows East Washington Street for a bit. Although the Simon Kenton Trail is a bike–hike trail, the street has only bike lanes and a sidewalk on one side. A cyclist heading eastbound would follow the bike lane, while a pedestrian heading eastbound would cross the street and use the sidewalk on the other side. The sidewalk is “part of” the trail in a pedestrian routing sense, but it doesn’t automatically “upgrade” the sidewalk to a sidepath.
As a side note, some commenters here seem to be assuming that sidewalks in the U.S. are always separated from the street by a grassy verge. This is not always the case, as this sidewalk demonstrates, but still the sidewalk is clearly physically separated from the street (in this case, by a raised curb).
