How to tag *unusable* sidewalks?

The majority of the mappers that I know would use neither of your suggestions. I might be wrong, though, but I didn’t vote, because all 3 don’t seem fitting. The suggested

highway=residential
sidewalk:both=yes
sidewalk:both:obstacle=parked_cars
note=sidewalk not usable for pedestrians as it is 24/7 full of illegally parked cars

was ditched, because a) editors might not support it and b) routers would still route over the sidewalk. None of this would be reason enough for me to abandon a perfectly valid and fitting schema.

Then I misunderstood the intention, sorry.

That was meant as a general statement, no matter the situation/picture. Both, cycleways and sidewalks don’t change what they are when there are obstacles on them.

cycleway:<side>=track
cycleway:<side>:oneway=no
sidewalk:<side>=no

Unless this is in a country where you’re generally allowed to walk on cycleways. I’d also add a bicycle=use_sidepath if the cycleway is compulsory. Since there’s bicycle pictograms painted on the way, the intended use is clearly a cycleway.

Thanks. So far, it seems that the common ground is that “purple lady” picture is to be tagged with (more or less detailed variant of) cycleway=yes + sidewalk=no. If someone disagrees, please speak up.

If you’d be so kind, I’d ask @Nadjita @dieterdreist @osmuser63783 (and others of course, especially if they had objections before) how would they tag asphalt part on the left of the kerb in this picture (the right side with car on it is highway=unclassified, in country where it is not legal to drive bicycles on surfaces designated for pedestrians):

(note I’ll address more points raised by you and other users later; I’ll try to take it one step by one step, as otherwise it seems that important points get lost).

That would be a sidewalk:<side>=yes in my country or a separate highway=footway + footway=sidewalk

1 Like

Yep, I agree. In Germany this would definitely be a sidewalk for pedestrians unless there would be some official roadsing declaring it to be a cycleway or a combined sidewalk/cycleway. Nevertheless it is possible of course that in other countries different regulations apply.

1 Like

What’s your point? That you don’t know if it’s a sidewalk or a cycleway if it’s blocked by cars? The one in your first post is clearly a sidewalk, you said as much (“built as one”).

If I genuinely don’t know what it is, I just wouldn’t tag it (neither its presence nor its absence). This suggests another solution: Just don’t add a sidewalk tag. But don’t be surprised when someone else adds one later.

1 Like

Exactly. And the even bigger point raising from it: if something is NOT Verifiable by mapper what it actually is, it should not be mapped by random tags which are not verifiable based on a pure guess.

The one in your first post is clearly a sidewalk,

Is it? “clearly”? How came then that this last (“black car”) picture is not “clear” to you then? It even shows much more of the surface than the first picture in the thread? If you are sure of the first picture, then you must also be doubly sure for the last one too. Yet, you seem to be unsure about the last picture.

you said as much (“built as one”).

Oh, so you too were born in that specific Zagreb neighbourhood several decades ago when there were much less much cars, and walked it often daily? Sorry I didn’t recognize you after all those years! :smiling_face:

joking aside: In other words, I do have local knowledge of that specific neighbourhood spanning several decades, so, against all chances, I am somewhat more familiar with that specific tiny part of the map more then the 99.999% of the OSM mappers (just like I am not so familiar with 99.999% of the rest of the planet).
So, what I can map here with source=local_knowledge there, you (most likely) can’t (not from the picture; you can visit and make friends with older locals and get to know a story over a cup of coffee, of course. The older generation there is generally a friendly bunch and likes to talk about times past!)

So, my source of information is not only that picture. From that picture alone, even I (living in that country) wouldn’t really know what it was initially before it became illegal parking. I might map it as disused:sidewalk=both, or as a disused:cycleway=both but simply because difference between “unusable sidewalk” and “unusable cycleway” is negligible. (as opposed to difference between “sidewalk” and “cycleway” which is huge).

This suggests another solution: Just don’t add a sidewalk tag

I actually agree with you here. This is why I actually did like that idea of adding just disused:sidewalk=both (without adding sidewalk=* tag), and probably why it was the most liked answer in the poll.


To conclude, how would you @osmuser63783 @Nadjita @dieterdreist (and everybody else) feel about:

highway=residential
disused:sidewalk=both
note=sidewalk is not usable for pedestrians as it is 24/7 full of illegally parked cars

one might even invent (and add to that list) suggested tag like sidewalk:both:obstacle=parked_cars or similar, if one thinks that machine-readable reason (in addition to human-readable reason in a note) is important addition for determining the reason why the sidewalk is not usable.

It specifically doesn’t add any sidewalk=* attribute, to keep common ground, and avoid contentious choices. Would that work for you?

While it wouldn’t be my first choice, it’s not a terrible idea, in my view: the main advantage compared with sidewalk=no is that even without the note, it doesn’t look like an error.

the right side with car on it is highway=unclassified, in country where it is not legal to drive bicycles on surfaces designated for pedestrians):

is this something that is enforced in your country, bicycle ban on pedestrian areas? If you can park all year long on the sidewalk without being towed, maybe it doesn’t matter in real life situations whether you are allowed to ride your bike on this empty sidewalk? My suggestion in this case would be bicycle=permissive, at least this is what I used on some ways.

In Croatia, driving bicycle where it is not allowed, same as with the illegal parking on sidewalk, you do get fined/towed from time to time. It just happens rarely enough that majority of people decide to budget for it instead of suffering daily inconveniences caused by following the law. :man_shrugging:

My suggestion in this case would be bicycle=permissive, at least this is what I used on some ways.

So, you would tag single way at that picture only as:

highway=unclassified
bicycle=permissive

Or would you tag it differently @dieterdreist (and if so, which other tags exactly - note it is just one way to be tagged, not multiple parallel ones)?

(On a somewhat related note, you may find that many people insist that access-related tags like bicycle=* are, as documented on the wiki, to be used exclusively for legal permissions/restrictions and should follow ground truth; e.g., signage or legal ruling”, and that “permissive” does not mean “physically possible, with very low chances of being caught and fined by police” but instead as “Open to general traffic until such time as the owner revokes the permission which they are legally allowed to do at any time in the future.” – but let’s fork a new thread if discussion about that is needed by clicking an reply arrow and choosing Reply as linked topic)

In Croatia, driving bicycle where it is not allowed, same as with the illegal parking on sidewalk, you do get fined/towed from time to time. It just happens rarely enough that majority of people decide to budget for it instead of suffering daily inconveniences caused by following the law. :man_shrugging:

eventually, it could also be seen differently, there are situations where it would make sense to allow riding your bicycle on what is now a “footway” by designating it a mixed use way (e.g. because there is fast and heavy traffic on the road and hardly any pedestrians on the sidewalk, e.g. along arterial roads in the outskirts), and eventually this will happen at some time in the future, but in the same way as police doesn’t fine people parking on the sidewalk, the municipality also doesn’t care to set up such signs. This is not specifically about Croatia, but I could imagine the situation is not too different, it is more what I experienced around here some time ago (things have changed a bit recently, in that they have indeed put up such signs to allow bicycle use, but they still don’t fine bicycles for anything theoretically illegal, infact the police does not take any notice of cyclists, they are considered pedestrians apparently).

My suggestion in this case would be bicycle=permissive, at least this is what I used on some ways.

So, you would tag single way at that picture only as:

highway=unclassified

bicycle=permissive

no, clearly not. If there are no signs, and there is only one way, I would tag it highway=unclassified, sidewalk=left. The tags you asked about would imply that bicycle use of the road is only permissive and not guaranteed.

If the sidewalk would be mapped explicitly, bicycle=permissive might have been added. Actually I do not add it recently, it was like 10 years ago when I added it in situations where you could save some way by short cutting, and where cyclists did it (also in front of the police, it was “natural” to go there). Even motorcycles do it sometimes (I do not add motorcycle=permissive and I think they have to be more careful not to be seen by the police). But there may be some other issues here, e.g. the situation might change if there’s an accident, and you might find out it wasn’t as permissive as you thought (not speaking from experience, just general considerations).


Or would you tag it differently @dieterdreist (and if so, which other tags exactly - note it is just one way to be tagged, not multiple parallel ones)?

(On a somewhat related note, you may find that many people insist that access-related tags like bicycle=* are, as documented on the wiki, to be used exclusively for legal permissions/restrictions and should follow ground truth; e.g., signage or legal ruling”, and that “permissive” does not mean “physically possible, with very low chances of being caught and fined by police” but instead as “Open to general traffic until such time as the owner revokes the permission which they are legally allowed to do at any time in the future.”

I would agree, my interpretation is like your second definition. But the legal situation is not just described by looking at the legislation, you also have to look what the executive and judiciary do. We don’t have tags for “forbidden but not enforced”, but I think you would agree it is different to “forbidden and enforced”? There’s also customary law.

Somewhat offtopic, but @dieterdreist - your replies are broken. You might want to wait until you can use the web UI before replying to everything by email.

We can’t see who you are quoting and some of what you are quoting is mangled.

thank you for mentioning this issue, I also noticed it happens sometimes (IIRR it also works sometimes), I have mailing list mode enabled, but it seems it should rather be renamed because if you can’t reply it means it doesn’t work like a mailing list.

1 Like

To be fair, people cock up replies and threading on mailing lists just as easily and just as often - there (like here) you just have to be careful that what you are actually sending is properly formatted and quotes what you want it to (and not more). At least here you can edit your answer afterwards to tidy it up.

1 Like

I had the impression that the system decided on its own what it considered message and what noise, I admit I may have been a bit lazy recently, overestimating its capabilities.

One can hope that things will change in the future, and pedestrian, bicycle and other sustainable transport given priority over cars. When that does (hopefully) happen, they will be some happy retagging!

Until then, I’d leave separately mapped footway as highway=footway, and leave fellow cyclist the choice if they wish to try their luck by cycling there against the law.
I would certainly not want to take on myself a burden of suggesting to them illegal practices (by adding bicycle=permissive) even if quite common and chance of being fined quite low. Same as I would not suggest illegal practices for car drivers by tagging illegal parkings with amenity=parking + car=permissive.

I would agree, my interpretation is like your second definition. But the legal situation is not just described by looking at the legislation, you also have to look what the executive and judiciary do.

Hm, no, I wouldn’t agree here. legal would mean to me as noted in wiktionary definition: “Being allowed or prescribed by law.” (i.e. by legislative body). Rate of enforcement, existence or amount of fines, chance to avoid trial etc. do no come into play there. If it is forbidden by letter of the law, it is access=no.

We don’t have tags for “forbidden but not enforced”, but I think you would agree it is different to “forbidden and enforced”?

That I would definitely agree they are different, and lead to different behaviours.

I’m however not sure that such unverifiable data like bicycle:legally_enforced_chance=2.7% make sense in the OSM (especially as they change with changes in power, seasons, special occasions, EU and other legislations etc.)

However, if someone were to make a website with simple UI I’m sure if would be quite popular if reliable statistics were to be collected, and that many OSM users would use it to enhance their OSM experience (wink wink nudge nudge). Like:


I’m a driving a truck / car / bicycle / motorcycle / ...
on a date 2023-03-30
in a country: Croatia / Italy / Germany / ...
and city: any / Berlin / Rome / Zagreb / ...
and am wondering what traffic offenses I might get away with?

Results:

Offense Chance of being caught for 2022 Fine
driving under influence of alchocol / drugs 17.5% 500-1500€
driving in opposite direction of the road 37.3% 2000€
driving on surface not designated for this vehicle 3.2% 250-500€
running red light 42.4% 500-1000€
speeding less than 20% over limit 11.2% 300€
speeding more than 20% over limit 34.7% 700€
illegal parking on a sidewalk 1.7% 500€ + towed vehicle
illegal parking in the middle of city square 78.8% 500€ + towed vehicle
illegal parking on the primary road to quickly go buy a croissant during rush hour 99.7% fatal injuries

* Fines and changes above are statistical data from past years only and do not guarantee similar results for this year or you in particular. Also in this particular case, numbers above were invented for example purposes. They do not represent actual statistics of 2022 for any of the countries mentioned above (and if they happen to, I should’ve bought lottery ticket instead :grin:)

1 Like

I’d like to thank everyone for their valuable input!

I’ve tried to document the summary of this discussion at Sidewalks#Permanently unusable sidewalks and its talk page. While I did my best to try documenting all ideas floated while still keeping it somewhat short; let me know if I missed some (or update wiki yourself!).

3 Likes

Chiming in really late here, but just to throw a spanner into the works:

I would call it a sidepath. :wrench: :wink:

But as for sidewalks, some food for thought:

Road bridges are sometimes built with raised concrete sidewalks even if the connecting roads at both ends lack sidewalks. It’s easier and cheaper to build the sidewalk upfront than to later retrofit one into the bridge or build a separate pedestrian bridge. The sidewalks are unusable in the sense that they connect to nothing, and often there are signs that would lead us to tag them as foot=no or perhaps foot=emergency. But if you have the misfortune of your car breaking down midway along a highway viaduct, you’ll be more than happy to use the sidewalk rather than braving the travel lanes on foot out of principle.

Since a router won’t use these out-of-the-way sidewalks, the stakes are pretty low. But I think it’s still OK to map them, because we aren’t just mapping for routers – we’re also documenting the built environment. (And renderers get to render these sidewalks too.)

1 Like

I absolutely agree with you here. The usable sidewalks are there on that bridge, so it should be marked with sidewalk=both. The fact that they’re hard to reach is something that routers are well equipped to deal with. (otherwise, if good connectivity was a requirement to tag road infrastructure, I might as well for example delete all cycleways in the city of Zagreb, as they’re very poorly connected in the cycling network and often lead nowhere, not to mention one has to dismount every few dozen meters :crying_cat_face:)

Now, if that part of the bridge was filled to the brim with pipes, construction equipment, heaps of sand etc. so it is not currently usable for pedestrians; or if it was still unfinished without surface (e.g. just metal skeleton with holes instead of concrete plates) then I’d argue that it is not currently a sidewalk (and thus shouldn’t be tagged with sidewalk=both at the moment - regardless whether it was connected to rest of pedestrian network or not)

1 Like

I fully agree with you. We’ll leave off with a picture worth a thousand words. :wink:

I think this is the best solution. It maps the actual de-facto situation which is more important than what is the situation on paper but also pays tribute to remark what the actual legal situation is.

I’d add: parking:both=no even though cars are parked to not have parking software (in the future) suggest that one could park there but at the same time also add a parking:note, explaining that in fact, cars are parked here, but it is not legal.

2 Likes