also common in Ireland. 
(technically illegal within a defined distance of a pedestrian crossing at least)
I think simple sidewalks that are immediately adjacent to the roadway should be kept as attributes. If there is a separation like a verge inbetween then it isn’t a sidwalk, it’s a footpath and should be mapped separately.
If you were in a car and needed to get out you should be able to immediately step onto the sidewalk.
If there is a barrier in the way such as a fence or a hill, then it definitely shouldn’t be mapped as a sidewalk.
When there is a gap and the footpath is mapped, the road should be given sidewalk=no
sidewalk=separate should be reserved for when the separate way represents an actual sidewalk with no gap. I think this should be generally avoided because it creates too many ways too close together for no real reason.
By that logic, all the sections of sidewalk with a railing or narrow verge between the carriageway and the sidewalk would somehow cease to be sidewalks. Would they also cease to be sidewalks where there is a legal prohibition of stopping next to the sidewalk?
Defining a sidewalk only by its utility to a motorist isn’t why people map separate sidewalks. Pedestrian navigation and accessibility considerations are far more important to me.
7 Likes
I didn’t suggest that it’s only for motorists, but it’s one of the main differences. It’s equally important for cyclists and people getting off busses. But if there is anything in the way then it’s not a sidewalk but a footpath.
If it’s mapped as a sidewalk then it should be immediately available along the entire length of the way. Anything else is a footpath
Even if there were a legal prohibition on stopping for cars, it would still be usable in an emergency.
That is a quite unusual definition of sidewalk.
4 Likes
Agreed, “sidewalk” is not defined by (existence or lack of) barriers between carriageway and footway parts (not even by low barriers such as kerbs). I’ve recently consulted some dozen popular English dictionaries for definitions of “sidewalk”, so one may want to look into middle of that (longish) post for dictionary references: Pedestrian lane on the road - #88 by Matija_Nalis
2 Likes
In Croatia it is only illegal to cross the road if there is marked sidewalk inside 50 meters radius of your location, otherwise it is allowed to cross any road (except motorways and roads exclusively for traffic of motor vehicles) wherever you want (after you’ve made sure you can do it safely).
And even in inside-50m-radius case when it is forbidden to cross the road on unmarked place, it would extremely rarely be enforced (but would be heavily taken into account if such pedestrian is involved in traffic accident while breaking that rule - i.e. pedestrian hit by a car in such case will not be a victim, but the guilty party).
2 Likes
It’s a fraught issue. In the residential Where I live, there is sharp relief, therefore, frequently, not one but two footpaths exist in parallel to the road. Often many metres away.
I am happy to put in the work to describe them along with their associated steps. This obviously is of benefit to those with a mobility impairment.
Major roads can have sidewalks or pavements as we call them in the UK can have embedded pedestrian walkways, whereas residential routes sometimes need a more detailed description.
i.e. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.83938/-0.09920
1 Like
It should be noted that all signatories of the Vienna Convention on Road traffic will have national legislation that allows pedestrians to cross the road in any place as long as there isn’t a crossing nearby (Art. 20 5.).
10 Likes
The latest update to our traffic code (in Austria, capitol being Vienna) specifically aims at fostering pedestrian and cyclist rights. The duty to use a marked crossing if within 25 m of walk got dropped, in case traffic allows for safe crossing (just like everywhere else).
I guess there is now only one way left to jaywalk - to cross at a signalized crossing between the stop markings for cars when the light shows red for pedestrians 
Such decisions are usually not done lightly but based on statistics grounded in empiric evidence. I do not expect a rise in casualties.
Earlier this year, the infamously car-friendly state of California relaxed its crossing-related laws so that a police officer can only stop a pedestrian for jaywalking if they walked carelessly into oncoming traffic. The motivation was that racial minorities were getting fined or arrested for jaywalking much more frequently than white people, reflecting an apparent bias. However, jaywalking remains prohibited per se; an officer could still enforce it in relation to some other offense. If you jaywalk and get into a collision, you could be found at fault.
Even if jaywalking were perfectly legal, it remains the responsibility of an OSM-based router to recommend the best route according to the requested criteria. It should be the router’s responsibility, not the mapper’s, to optimize the route by taking shortcuts based on the user’s comfort level. This goes for pedestrian and wheelchair routing as much as for bicycle and motorcycle routing. If a router is unable to satisfy actual user expectations because of the tagging scheme, the problem might turn out to be orthogonal to whether we map sidewalks as separate ways, and the solution might turn out to be more tractable than this debate.
More broadly, it may be tempting to map a workaround for suboptimal infrastructure on behalf of users, but this can paper over the problem, making it more difficult for community members to argue for better infrastructure, perhaps relying on an OSM-based analysis.
7 Likes
That is a fine article there at laist . com, I can only subscribe to this, that it is up to the administration to better pedestrian infrastructure where it is lacking.
In my post, I was just commenting the legality of crossing, I did not read any of what is in this topic. Curiously though, You mention this, In my view, from my trench so to say, separate mapping of sidewalks does just the opposite of what you claim, namely make it
These separate sidewalks are just like rails laid by the mapper, aren’t they?
Only to the same extent as mapping any roadway or pathway as a linear feature. Mapping pathways as lines isn’t equivalent to mapping an informal shortcut. It also shouldn’t dissuade anyone from also mapping pedestrian plazas, running track multipolygons, and roadway and footway areas so that, say, a pedestrian simulation game could take the path less traveled.
I tend to think that most of this infrastructure should be mapped separately for many reasons, but I can see the arguments that people make for tagging it on streets. That said, tags on streets are far less useful to me as a pedestrian consumer of data, and if we want to, as a community, consider street-based sidewalk tagging as anything other than a preliminary step before someone maps it as separate infrastructure, there are some major tooling and rendering issues we need to resolve. This is separate from the “which is better” argument that we could go all day about what’s proper, and instead showing where the incentives are to map things separately:
- Very few renderers of the map will show sidewalks if they’re tags on roadways rather than separate infrastructure. We shouldn’t map for the renderer, but the renderer should map for the users of the data, and right now, renderers don’t yet support the user that wants to casually plan their foot path and make sure they can stay on sidewalks - unless those sidewalks are mapped as separate ways.
- The big 3 pedestrian routers will inconsistently use sidewalks when mapped separately, in my experience, but when they’re mapped as tags, it is completely opaque to the user whether or not they’re being routed on a sidewalk or down a street. I know at least some use the data and I suspect they all do, but it’s not passed along to the user so they can decide if the route makes sense.
- Intersections and curbs are nearly impossible. The tagging/node schema for an intersection to map whether or not there are crosswalks and whether those crosswalks have flush curbs is challenging and confusing, and still doesn’t help a user evaluate the safety of the route. This is of concern for accessibility, but also for anyone with anything that rolls - a wagon, a stroller, etc - which probably make up a decent chunk of people looking for pedestrian routing. This could be improved with better documentation and making these nodes more visible, but even still, I think they’re harder to interpret for a user of the map/data than an actual line for a crossing. That’s just my opinion though.
Regardless, I think we often debate these things as if the choice of how to map them is a neutral decision for the end user and is just about how to best store the data. But unless we make improvements to how tooling/routers/renderers handles the tagging data, the experience is very poor for pedestrian users unless the infrastructure is mapped separately - and that’s not a shot at the people doing the work of maintaining these tools, but just a reality of the current experience. I think that should be front and center in these discussions.
2 Likes
What is the point of trying to redefine the concept of sidewalk? Do anyone expect the 3 million ways to thier tags changed. ID has supported the idea for ay atleast 10 years. I realize it bugs people that use the term for their at grade footways. There are plenty tags that are equally entrenched that annoy me. Please move on to other tags that need work!
Well. That issue has been discusses many times, and never has a consensus been reached, so I’ll find it a waste of time to invest too much time into discussing it again.
So just one thing for your consideration. Even if I agree that separately mapped sidewalk can contain more details and thus be more useful than just tagging sidewalk=yes on a existing highway=residential for example; the amount of effort needed to do so is absolutely not worth such minor difference. So I disagree with that “far less useful” qualification. I’d use “slightly” or “somewhat” instead of “far”.
But the biggest thing is that I can tag sidewalk:both=yes on 100 roads in StreetComplete in the same time that it would take me to draw that sidewalks on 1 road in Vespucci (and likely with less errors). Yet, clearly mapping those 2 sidewalks as separate ways around 1 road does not provide 100 times more value.
Thus, in vast majority of cases, I just tag them as additional tags instead as of separate ways, and use my time do add other useful things on the map. As in my mind, 100 roads with sidewalk:both=yes (or similar tags) is much more useful than 1 road with separately mapped sidewalks.
If that is important feature for you, then perhaps you should lobby those routers to do the better job with displaying the data they’re using? I’d guess that investing time in writing such issues (or even PRs) has a much bigger chance of being successful, then writing a post on community forums has on radically swaying opinion of countless thousands of mappers which were unconvinced for past several decades?
And there is another option to be the change you wish to see in the world. If you’d like to see more sidewalks being mapped as separate ways, you can just go and map them as such. In most communities which do both, nobody would deride you for changing a simple tag (like sidewalk=yes) to a separate highway=footway way(s) mapped with more details (and replacing that tag with sidewalk:xxxx=separate). On the contrary!
But you should probably not expect that others must share the same enthusiasm for investing their precious time to do such minor (as it may seem to them!) improvements.
TL;DR: IOW:
In theory, the question might be about “should sidewalks be mapped as simple tags or as a separate ways?”
But in practice, for many mappers, that question is really more of a “should sidewalks be mapped as simple tags, or not at all?”
2 Likes
This dilemma is mostly predicated on the ergonomics of whichever editor you’re using. For an iD user, for instance, tagging sidewalk:* isn’t necessarily simpler than drawing a sidewalk way. And even if iD adds a sidewalk field, there will always be mappers who gravitate toward a separate-way representation, just as some newcomers instinctively map each shop in a strip mall as an area. On the other hand, it’s pretty hard to imagine StreetComplete in its current state helping its users map sidewalk and crosswalk ways when even stop signs pose a difficult challenge.
If the goal is to maximize coverage while prioritizing ease of entry, then I wonder what folks in this thread think of using automated approaches based on imports, road geometry heuristics, or computer vision as a starting point. None of these approaches is perfect by any means, but the quality triangle only has so many vertices.
Maybe if the question were posed differently, this thread wouldn’t go on forever. It has been pretty clear from the start that there’s no one way to map a sidewalk. But if there could be consensus about the acceptability of sidewalk and crosswalk ways, then most of the proponents of that mapping style would take that as a very positive change. Beyond that, I’m stubbornly hopeful the community will someday come around to sidewalk ways, just as I finally gave in about stop bars, if only because reality defies any attempt at simplification.
1 Like
The consensus in the 한국/조선(Korea) community is that if it is protected by a curb or solid obstacle, it should be drawn separately, and if it is just a floor marker or unprotected plastic obstacle, it should be included in the street attributes.
I think this applies to two-way streets as well as sidewalks and bike paths.
한국/조선 커뮤니티에서는 연석이나 견고한 장애물로 보호받는 경우에는 되도록 따로 그리고, 단 차이가 없고 바닥 표시로만 표시되어 있거나 보호받지 못하는 플라스틱 장애물 같은 것은 길 속성에 포함해서 그리는 쪽으로 의견을 모았습니다.
이것은 양 방향 도로도 마찬가지이고 보도나 자전거 도로에도 적용할 수 있다고 생각합니다.
2 Likes
Where I live, the relief is profound. Sometimes there are two pavements running parallel on a single side to a residential road, each at different heights.
Separate footways is a necessity here.
Yes. We don’t draw separate “lanes” (i.e. only floor markings) as separate OSM ways, so in that case one would just use additional tags instead of drawing separate ways (see e.g. Pedestrian lane on the road)
And also yes, sometimes the footpaths diverge from the road or have some special reasons (e.g. become bridges, crosses the road, etc) that makes it reasonable to always map such cases as separate ways.
But this historic lack of consensus (which is being talked about here) was never about either of those two categories mentioned above (which happen to be minority of cases globally).
The lack of consensus was instead about remaining 95% (or whatever) of footways that could reasonably be tagged either as a separate way (with advantage of allowing for more details and precision) or as additional tags (with advantage of being vastly easier and faster)