I find it incredibly telling that not a single person opposed to separate sidewalk mapping to any degree replied with a substantive answer to this post of mine which disagrees with the obvious answer.
The thread is locked now, so I will repost the contents:
Let’s say we have a situation on-the-ground like this:
So, the question is: Should the snake-like road mapping be deleted because its accurate-but-incomplete mapping results in worse routing?
My answer to that prompt is “No.”
In line with that, I object to the removal of as-termed “decorative” sidewalks.
Note on non-sidewalks
This conclusion does not apply to “non-sidewalks” - the very small (essentially an extended curb top surface) areas shown in some images posted earlier are not functionally or structurally sidewalks, and should not be tagged as such. Edge cases of barely-usable sidewalks are better solved by tagging details like width. Sidewalks that do exist and are permanently unusable should be tagged in a way that indicates that status, such as with a lifecycle prefix.
If you repeat the “It (can) make routing worse!” argument without substantively addressing this post, it is clear to me that you are arguing in bad faith.
I am writing to express my strong objections to this thread and the deeply flawed methodology of the poll @JamesBelchamber has constructed. Framing the previous, vigorous debate as “not healthy” and suggesting it risks a “last person standing” scenario is deeply manipulative. It is a form of toxic positivity that presents those of us advocating for necessary accessibility features as merely argumentative or unreasonable. Disagreement over fundamental data requirements isn’t a failure of the community; it’s a necessary process. Categorizing this advocacy as a disruption acts as a silencing tactic, allowing a few vocal individuals to shout everyone else down under the guise of “consensus building”.
The poll itself is incredibly tricky and poorly designed. As @ceirios rightly pointed out, many of the statements are heavily loaded and subjective, such as asking if separated pavements are a “mistake” or discussing the deletion of “poorly separated” pavements. Furthermore, asking people to vote on whether pavements make journey times “harder” or “easier” , as @LivingWithDragons noted, presents a false equivalence between convenience for some and absolute necessity for others. To prioritize the minor convenience of able-bodied users, who might be annoyed by extra data, over the fundamental ability of disabled people to access the service at all is, in practice, violent and ableist. I would not feel comfortable trusting any results derived from such a poorly designed poll with incredibly leading language.
As a wheelchair user, I need to make it abundantly clear. Disabled people being able to use the map is not optional. As @LordGarySugar noted, accurate wheelchair routing is effectively impossible without separately mapped sidewalks, crossings, and kerbs. Relying on tags on a center-line highway simply fails to capture enough information required for safe navigation in a wheelchair. We should not be voting on whether accessible mapping is a “good idea” like this. You either come up with a replacement and get the community on board with that or shut up about it because quite frankly I am sick of hearing able-bodied individuals whine about minor inconveniences to them in a country where our government is currently killing us through the removal of welfare support.
Finally, the argument that separate sidewalks ruin the map for able-bodied pedestrians is weak at best and outright misleading at worst. The current schema allows for systems to degrade gracefully. Routers can easily use tags on roads to enable a “cross anywhere” mode for people who can navigate any kerb, or they can simply ignore all footway=sidewalk ways and exclude them from their routing graph with zero consequence. The presence of high-fidelity data has no impact on those who don’t need it, but the absence of that data completely breaks the map for those of us who do. I urge the community to reject this manufactured consensus, avoid votes that effectively boil down to if disabled people deserve access, and instead focus on the technical requirements for making OSM usable for everyone.
but that’s what shouldve been done within the 300+ posts of the locked thread in the first place. i honestly think this thread should be locked too before it drags on and we all end up going round in circles.
the poll/methodology is wildly flawed in the first place and it’s becoming clear to me that this is also going nowhere. people are asking questions in good faith and you’re shutting them down by saying things like this.
I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make. The “should poor quality mapping be deleted or improved” question has been debated ad nauseam elsewhere and based on the posts there there isn’t a simple answer - there were a wide range of views expressed.
Your “snake” road is an example of mapping that would (until the rest of the roads were added) give wildly inaccurate routing (but better, obviously, than “no roads at all”). However, I don’t think we see people doing this with road networks in OSM; they tend to try consider all sorts of "good mapping considerations rather than concentrating on one and ignoring all the others.
The question isn’t surely not “is it OK to delete it” but “is it OK to add something that unrepresentative (and leave it there) in the first place”? In this example, wouldn’t it be better to try and get the basic road grid in first and then iterate the detail?
These are some incredibly loaded personal attacks that fall far outside reasonable discourse. You can’t reasonably accuse me of ableism and violence (?!) for trying to turn down the heat on this issue and actually build some bridges.
If you think another debate is worthwhile then you’re welcome to create another thread on it (and frankly I can’t stop you, except asking nicely, from continuing that debate here), but that approach hasn’t worked so far - people are incredibly entrenched in their positions and there is not a strong majority for any approach such that one side can simply “win”.
Consensus-building is the basis of strong community projects because it’s founded in empathy and a shared understanding. I appreciate that it’s frustrating and slow but if the work isn’t done to build that empathy and shared understanding then the project will fester in it.
The status quo for pavement mapping is creating infighting and burnout, which doesn’t help you because you need people to map so that you can use the map. We need to try something else. I’m trying something else - not perfect, sure - why not work with me on this?
I genuinely don’t believe that anyone has said that it was optional. Everyone is trying to create the best map, for everyone. Mapping things that don’t exist (as happened with some of the alleged sidewalks in Manchester that later on-the-ground pictures confirmed were not there) or things that do, but don’t actually join to previously on-the-ground-mapped crossings (e.g. in Ealing recently) doesn’t help anyone, no matter how they get around.
I’m making the point that the “It (can) make routing worse!” argument keeps being repeated despite a clear counterargument being presented but not responded to.
That’s not exactly the question, unless you consider “accurate and incomplete” to be “poor quality”.
The anti-sidewalk-mapping refrain is “(Incomplete) sidewalk mapping is worse than no sidewalks at all” and the example I provided intentionally creates less accurate routing than the no-roads case.
Yes, of course. I doubt anyone would argue that “A well-connected sidewalk network” is worse than “An incomplete pedestrian infrastructure mapping” which is why that wasn’t ever the question, in these threads or in my example with roadways.
It’s insane to me that I’m being accused of ableism since one of my primary issues with mapping in Manchester is that it lies to people in wheelchairs about where they could go.
I was very clear in my previous proposal that where separated pavements would improve the map for wheelchair users we should separate them.
The statements I’ve provided above are not all statements I agree with (you can see where I agree because you can see my votes). All I’m trying to do is ensure everyone feels like they’re included so we can actually move this forward.
Running away from counterarguments and retreating to a new thread where you better control the narrative via heavily-loaded poll options is not “consensus-building” - rather more like the opposite.
We’ve debated the argument/counterargument ad nauseum. What do you want me to do, state my opinion again? How does that help? We disagree, your arguments have not persuaded me and my arguments have not persuaded you.
And that seems to go for quite a few other people in the UK community, who are not convinced by your arguments even though you’ve written them down many times and published a guide on how you think things should be mapped.
FWIW the issues about “separate sidewalk mapping” that have crossed the DWG’s desk haven’t really been about separate sidewalk mapping per se but about poor sidewalk mapping - imaginary ones, unconnected ones, etc. If, when adding separate sidewalks we also try and map all the connectivity (where there are flush kerbs and where there aren’t) then we’ll all do a better job.
My apologies if I missed it - can you link to anyone providing a counter-argument in response to my intentionally-extreme example about incomplete-but-accurate mapping of roadways?
Or do you mean that “I didn’t respond to your argument because I disagree (but won’t explain why)” was actually your intention?
Just tuning in here, what is all this discourse even about? Seperate pavements might make routing times longer because they’re more accurate (you dont walk in the centreline of the road). Them being of no use if they’re badly mapped extends to all OSM features. They help the people who need them and contribute to the map’s accuracy either way whether you rely on seperate pavements or don’t.
This conflation of universally-disagreed-with things (“[mapping] imaginary [sidewalks]”) and the actual points in focus (“[mapping] unconnected [sidewalks]”) is not helpful.
I do not recall anyone arguing in favor of creating highway=footway + footway=sidewalk ways where sidewalks do not actually exist at all.
[Quick edit: I do recall instances of folks disagreeing on what counts as a sidewalk; this, again, is not the same as advocating for mapping things that do not exist.]
Yes, of course, mapping connected networks of pedestrian infrastructure is unequivocally better than mapping disconnected pedestrian infrastructure. No one (that I have seen or can recall, but of course my mind is fallible!) is arguing this.
It’s really unhelpful to bring up disconnected sidewalks and nonexistent sidewalks again. Everybody agrees they’re wrong. Nobody is arguing in favour of bad mapping. What’s the point in bringing it up again, to try to conflate those arguments with Canopy’s post and discredit them?
It’s clear to me that yourself and James are not interested in reasoned debate based on the dismissive and irrelevant arguments that keep being presented. We want to discuss how best to map pavements in detail that makes everybody happy, and I believe there are some people in this thread that simply aren’t interested in that discussion.
I think we should close this thread and suspend all separated sidewalk discussion for one month so that we can gather our thoughts and reflect on where to go from here.
in my opinion, if someone who uses a wheelchair thinks they are witnessing ableism, then it’s within their rights to say that (i do think ableism is a problem in the OSM community from my personal experience, but that’s totally offtopic and for another time).
i mean to quote Brenda from Bristol and say “oh god not another one” because
i feel like the “infighting and burnout” is stemming from these threads rather than the actual mapping practices. i am personally tired of this thread already, and long tired of hearing about the locked one. this post right now that i’m writing isnt even discussing pavements for goodness sakes mun.
people are asking genuine questions and you’re shutting them down, you’re not articulating what the actual problems are and why we’re all still here, i asked you twice on the last thread about what the actual issue was with “the status quo” and it either got lost or left unanswered. and as i’ve said already, the poll is flawed and to me that means it’s not admissible for coming to any sort of consensus. there is a lot of “stating opinion as fact” going on in this thread and the last one and it’s getting misleading. people are being shouted down and being left on seen which leads to people not wanting to engage.
