The new “Footways” category (under Transportation → Walking) shows sidewalks, footways, steps, platforms and pedestrian zones. Sidewalks mapped on the street way (sidewalk:left, sidewalk:right resp. sidewalk:both) will be shown with an offset - hatching indicates the relation.
If you have an questions, comments or ideas, please create an issue on Github! Quite some new strings were added to the translation system. Your participation is highly appreciated!
Two questions:
width tag of the highway into account?area:highway=footway?It seems to be rendered based on example image, unless for some reason they are showing area where deliberately incorrect tagging for renderer was used.
I have added a link right on top to section of Sidewalks - OpenStreetMap Wiki - maybe the picture on this section can be replaced by the one from above? ItoMap has been discontinued long since…
I was not aware of area:highway=footway. I will add that soon. How should I display it? I could do a border-less area of the same color, so that you can see the way in the center.
Btw, the footway area in Kiel has a tagging mistake. The Wiki-Page clearly states:
Don’t create an area:highway=footway area without also creating a linear highway=footway way along the centerline of the footway.
The rendering does not take the width into account, but it will be shown in the popup (also sidewalk:left:width and similar).
yes, I think that could work.
I think this the reason behind this is that only ways are routable. In this case, the sidewalks are tagged on the residential highway, so routability is not affected.
And to be in general backward-compatible. Reducing area:highway areas to linear lines representing footways is at least really complex to achieve, if possible at all.
I see area:highway mainly as a rendering tag that I always only use in addition to the other tags.
Now, highway:area=* is also rendered. Here’s a cut-out of the screenshot from map key:
I only know of one commercial pedestrian router that routes highway=pedestrian areas, but not area:highway areas. (Consequently, they ignore any footpaths drawn on pedestrian areas, but they do not hurt.) My take: Some more research needed, but good things take time 
Also ja, das gefällt schon sehr. Mittlerweile hab ich auch den Unterschied zwischen braun und blau verstanden, weil auf braun, da kann man theoretisch auch radeln und reiten, auf blau aber nur zu Fuß unterwegs sein.
Derweil stellt sich mir aber noch die Frage, ob es nicht Sinn machen würde, Betretungsverbote (access=private zB) anzuzeigen? In der Gegend sind da ein paar, manche auch mit Gattern verschlossen, nicht unterscheidbar im overlay.
The problem was not sidewalk=both, the problem was that the object is a closed way. Fixed, this looks correct now:
Unter dem Info-Icon links versteckt sich die Legende. braun: highway=path, blau: highway=footway. Diese werden in der OSM oft synonym behandelt, was ich eher problematisch finde.
Das ist ein sehr guter Punkt, den ich nicht bedacht habe. Ich werde schauen, wie ich das umsetzen kann (durchgestrichen oder so). Ich hab ein Issue angelegt.
I just added a filter for access. Do you think, this is sufficient? Adding more clutter to the overlay might make it less readable …
I’m unclear how Pedestrian footways are different for sidewalks and crossings.
I recommend the following links for learning the differences:
I hope, this can help you. Do you have further questions?
None of these sources differentiates “pedestrian footway” from “footways”. Is the pedestrian version a subtype of footways or is there a different usage all together? As far as I can tell they are the same thing. Please explain what you believe how they. Most of the previous comments about to represent a footway use methods than using a way. Beyond that i am just confused.
