Actually, to me, a sidewalk is a lane Just like the carriageway is a lane or several. Too many people seem to only consider the carriageway when they say highway. That is just too much car-centric in my view of the world. Also, that is not how highway=residential is documented nor used.
sidewalk:right=lane is problematic because extending the tagging schema in this way is not going to play nice with data consumers. I.e. every data consumer would need to specifically implement to support this tag value.
I’d suggest instead sidewalk:right:kerb=no, it also has a few hundred usages already and properly separates the physical existence of a sidewalk from properties of the sidewalk.
Another option to consider would be to use same schma from the separation proposal, although the proposal itself doesn’t specifically mention sidewalks. In this case it would be sidewalk:right:separation=no.
I don’t agree with using sidewalk:*= at all. This implies there is a footway=sidewalk that can be drawn. This is sidewalk=no . Absence of kerbing doesn’t mean there is no physical separation either, which can be provided by other barriers. footway=lane has already been used. This would allow for footway=shoulder etc in extension. This promotes consistency with cycleway= .
There’s sidewalk:right=separate which i’ve used a number of times (125K uses per TI) popping up as a value in JOSM.
=separate strongly infers its raised i.e. has a kerb some parking tags depict it that way too as with parking signs showing this with half_on_kerb so dont think we need a :kerb distinction. Having a kerb is the norm.
Anyway, =lane is to me a superfluous value
Oh and =seperate has 43 uses, candidate for cleaning, by hand of course.
=separate means that the sidewalk is mapped as a separate way, it does not make any assumption about the separation of the sidewalk towards the road.
If this not clear enough in the wiki documentation, it should be made so, after all, when one just looks at the name of the tag, it may seem obvious to assume it has something to do with physical separation.
The photo shows a perfectly legit sidewalk. In my area these are quite rare, probably only used where administration is on a tight budget. As far as I can tell, such do NOT need a this is a highway=footway-sign either, as ordinary people, both motorists and pedestrians are considered able to know just from looking.
A sidewalk needs a physical separation from vehicle traffic. Even a crudely made sidewalk will include some type of barrier. It could be a section of intentional raised or lowered road surface, a concrete kerb or just strip grass or dirt in between. Whatever form its takes, a driver should be able to see and feel intervening materials if their tire(s) come in contact with it.
Neither will reality bend to what (some) OpenStreetMappers think what should be, nor will you find any internationally valid legislation that forbids such sidewalks.
At any rate, the OpenStreetMap definition of sidewalk in the wiki also does not mention that at least a kerb needs to be present to be counted as one. In fact, several sidewalks that just consist of markings are shown as examples where the sidewalk should rather be mapped on the road-way as sidewalk=* than with a separate way highway=footway + footway=sidewalk: Sidewalks - OpenStreetMap Wiki
Then I am very confused why a traditional sidewalk is the same as painted footways you posted pictures of.
In the wiki there is only one of the many pictures in the examples section of the “overview” page that is a painted footway. Everything else appears to be physically seperated from the road they are next to. Each one includes one or more of the lists a number of ways: materials used, hight difference or some barrier sush as a kerb.
The attached pictures of two legal footways are both effectively a shoulder.
You are not from Europe? How else could you confuse such very different features Shoulders here only exist on motorways, the pictures here a quite up to that.
It is not same (obviously, as a kerb protects better than a painted line; in the same way as a row of bollards or jersey barrier protects better then just a kerb), but it serves the same purpose - movement of pedestrians.
In the wiki there is only one of the many pictures in the examples section of the “overview” page that is a painted footway
That is because they are less popular, so they need to be represented less in examples too. (and they are less popular because their target audience - pedestrians - feel less safe on them and insist on safer solutions whenever they are possible).
The attached pictures of two legal footways are both effectively a shoulder.
Depends on your definition of shoulder. In my country, that is lane forbidden for regular traffic of any kind (including pedestrian traffic!), and used only for emergency stopping, or for (slowly!) avoiding e.g. traffic accident on main lanes when directed so by the police/ambulance on the scene. But I hear that in some countries it is allowed for bicycles or pedestrians to use shoulders (at least in some circumstances), but even there it is (to the best of my knowledge) never their primary purpose.
This on the pictures are lanesdedicated for pedestrian movement. Ways dedicated for pedestrian movement are often called footways, footpaths, pavements or sidewalks – but they are most often not called “shoulders”, even if they are at the same level as the road. Just like on the same level as rest of the road you may have dedicated lane for a bus, or dedicated lane(s) for a bicycles, you can have a dedicated lane for pedestrians.
It is not same (obviously, as a kerb protects better than a painted line; in the same way as a row of bollards or jersey barrier protects better then just a kerb), but it serves the same purpose - movement of pedestrians.
actually this is a false sense of safety, neither a kerb nor the typical row of bollards actually protect pedestrians from automobiles, they think they would be protected when they actually aren’t. Jersey barriers are way more effective, and bollards in theory could be anchored deeper and firmer, but usually they just concede.
Just like the carriageway is a lane or several. Too many people seem to only consider the carriageway when they say highway. That is just too much car-centric in my view of the world. Also, that is not how highway=residential is documented nor used.
