The left lane is for cars and cyclists, the right lane for pedestrians only. The classic sidewalk on the far right is demarcated by a narrow green strip.
My basic problem is that a shoulder on a motorway can’t magically become a sidewalk on a residential road. Each wiki describes a distinct physical structures. Shoulders are an extension of the existing road surface with marking indicating where it is legal for non-motor vehicles traffic to be. Sidewalks are for non-motorized traffic that is separated from the road surface.
Two shoulders; one for emergency use only and the other for pedestrians and bikes.
I also consider the promenade a foopath independent of the street, while the one only separated by ground markings is the sidewalk - something that Austrian code fully supports.
That reminds me of a video, where the then maintainer of the iD editor showcased the new sidewalk mapping features in iD 2.0 and in fact started out with mapping lake side promenades. Maybe there is some cultural stuff? After all, the promenades are on the side of the lake?
My basic problem is that a shoulder on a motorway can’t magically become a sidewalk on a residential road.
A motorway never becomes a residential road, the sidewalk of a residential road can look the same or very similar to the shoulder of a motorroad, it is not a contradiction, because sidewalk is about intended usage.
Each wiki describes a distinct physical structures. Shoulders are an extension of the existing road surface with marking indicating where it is legal for non-motor vehicles traffic to be. Sidewalks are for non-motorized traffic that is separated from the road surface.
it depends on the area, in many places sidewalks not only exclude motorized traffic but any vehicular traffic. Sidewalks do not have to be physically separated (markings are sufficient)
I’m glad you’ve come to agree to this view that sidewalk is indeed about intended usage - i.e. surface designated to movement of pedestrians! Right? Because, previously, you seemed to have hold opposite stance:
So, you have heard the arguments and changed opinion, right? I have great respect for that!
Or perhaps you haven’t changed the opinion, and is there some nuance here that I’m missing (i.e. “intended usage to move pedestrians” is somehow different from “activity of pedestrians moving”)?
Based on the wiki description Sidewalks are a structural seperated way designed for pedestrian and/or other non-motorized traffic. That seperation can be in the form of a break in the roadway or by a difference in height between surfaces.
I agree. The post you replied to was however directed specifically to @dieterdreist, as he seemed previously not to agree with that definition, especially part about “designed for pedestrian traffic” (but later seem to have changed his opinion, if I understood that correctly - but I’m not 100% sure, so I’ve asked above for his confirmation).
You aren’t fixing the {{questioned}} and {{dubious}} essence of it by changing based on the opinion of “several here”. This has been definition since creation. Sidewalks - OpenStreetMap Wiki
I think the definition of a sidewalk varies from country to country. One country’s sidewalk might be another’s shoulder. And it’s fine if each has their own criteria what to consider a sidewalk. So in that case, it’s perfectly fine to add to the english (global) wiki that a sidewalk can also be separated by paint only.
Let me give you another example, where people might be confused:
The left side of the road is a sidewalk, the right side is street parking. The only reason why, is the blue sign you can spot in the background. It’s not always easy. A lot of times I need to ask the city, if a street actually has a sidewalk. Oh, there used to be some white paint somewhere on the left as well, but it has worn off. Just saying it’s really not all black and white, at least over here.
It’s not the same when you change the meaning substantially. shoulder= and verge= was discussed before. Co-opting “sidewalk” into any indicated walkable part makes sidewalk= lose its strength and information. Physical vs marked is a very crucial distinction.
Even if this is accepted, you have to ensure everyone adds either sidewalk:*:separation= or kerbing for it to be useful. Which is more work, yet to be done, than sidewalk= and the footway:*=lane in limited use. (How do you suggest to check the usage of sidewalk= while we are at it?)
Then what about when there is somehow a bike lane? Despite having the same physical treatment, one is claimed to be a sidewalk=left , the other only a cycleway:left=lane . This is confusing and inconsistent. I won’t bother to think about how this should be handled for shared-use.
There are people agreeing “pedestrian lane” is appropriate before. Not sidewalk at all. Talk:Proposed features/Pedestrian lane - OpenStreetMap Wiki
Actually, the picture shows is a change in the paving there, something that might be construed as “structural”. Still, in this case as well as when there is only ground markings, I’d find myself obliged to add sidewalk:right:kerb=no, as such a miss from what usually is taken for granted is not accommodating to the visually impaired.
I do not see: The sidewalk is the part of the street set aside for pedestrian use. That is the definition. My update of the wiki does nothing to change that, not in the least.
The definition according to whom? The closest term, if any, is still “footway”. Sidewalk is a specific part with a specific design, which is most commonly found and recognized worldwide to be physical.
UK’s CIHT and IHE has some recommendations.
Cycleway “A part of the highway allocated for use by cyclists, including both cycle lanes and
cycle tracks.”
Footway “A way within the boundaries of a highway which also includes a carriageway, over
which the public has a right of way on foot only.”
Pedestrian lane “A part of a carriageway allocated for use by pedestrians. Includes both areas delineated by road markings, or by a reserve of other physical barrier.”
This mostly follows the Highway Act. Except “pedestrian lane” is not legislated. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/329
Now indeed, “footway” in reality refers to the physical sidewalks in UK technical terms; and it can well be argued if a “pedestrian lane” is contained in a “carriageway”, it can’t be a “footway” under this definition. But considering OSM history, and how “footpath” as well as “cycleway” is laid out here and used in OSM, it is more logical and fitting to treat “footway” as the equivalent to “cycleway”, including both pedestrian lanes and the physical sidewalks.
For further comparison, DMRB has explicitly noted the “definition of carriageway can differ from those used in the Highways Act 1980 c66 [Ref 14.N] and the SI 2016 No 362 (TSRGD) 2016 [Ref 23.N]”. https://standardsforhighways.co.uk/tses/attachments/10442706-b592-42c8-85f8-2a0c779a8e37
Both DMRB and TSRGD defines “carriageway” as for vehicular travel only. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016
The Highways Act “carriageway” is closer to DMRB’s “paved width”, which includes hard shoulder, thus pedestrian lanes could instead be closely associated with the “paved width”. In US documents, such difference exists between “traveled way” and “roadway”, with pedestrian lane defined on the roadway. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/small_towns/fhwahep17024_lg.pdf#page=102
I agree (or I wouldn’t have opened this topic at all, obviously)
Even if this is accepted, you have to ensure everyone adds either sidewalk:*:separation= or kerbing for it to be useful
It is sidewalk:right:kerb=*, and you do not always need to specify it, only when it differs from default. For example, in Croatia, vast majority of sidewalks are assumed to have kerb separating it from street, so if there is sidewalk:right=yes (or sidewalk=right) adding sidewalk:right:kerb=yes is unneeded (and unwanted needless stating of the obvious), so you would only need to sidewalk:right:kerb=no in rare cases where there is no kerb.
Same as in Croatia, for example, highway=motorway is assumed to be lit=yes, foot=no, bicycle=no, motorcar=yes, minspeed=60 and shoulder=right (among other things). You would not go specifying all of them, they are implied. You would only tag some of them if they unexpectedly differed from that defaults.
How do you suggest to check the usage of sidewalk= while we are at it?
Then what about when there is somehow a bike lane? Despite having the same physical treatment, one is claimed to be a sidewalk=left , the other only a cycleway:left=lane . This is confusing and inconsistent.
But the fact that TMTOWTDI was there before this issue, why bring it up now?
If that is confusing and inconsistent, it is unfortunate, but is an accepted fact of OSM that there are multiple ways to map same real-life elements, and has been for a long period of years.
The only difference pertaining to this thread is that specific lane value (as opposed to yes value, which is already accepted everywhere) in cycleway:left=lane is de-facto, while sidewalk:left=lane is only (and that slightly) in-use. Whereas sidewalk:left:kerb=no is noticably more popular tagging for saying the same thing.
The documents you quote are self-evidently not in accordance with OSM tagging. Just because UKRLG calls something a “footway” does not at all mean that it is nearly the same thing that OSM calls a “footway”. Thus, UKRLG definitions are irrelevant in OSM tagging.
Case in point: take a look at osm.org for many ways tagged as highway=footway. Notice that very may of them are not“within the boundaries of a highway which also includes a carriageway”, so they would not match UKRLG definition of “footway”. They however match OSM definition of footway just fine (hint: UKRLG would call lone highway=footway as “footpath” instead)
This is my problem. We already have enough issues with using terms that have poor definition. Sidewalks and shoulders are two physically different thing. I’m fine with different terms to other variations.
For context, the word “sidewalk” comes from American English. To speakers of this dialect, the general notion of a sidewalk is one of the most basic transportation concepts, right up there with “intersection”. We learn the meaning of a sidewalk as kindergartners, more or less by intuition, based on the predominant construction practices here, which are obviously influenced by regulations. A sidewalk is a physical structure; the idea of identifying one by a road marking, sign, or legal code is completely foreign to us.
Yesterday, I encountered this sign at the approach to a bridge. The structure behind it was built as a sidewalk and remains one, even though today it’s closed to pedestrian traffic:
If OSM has repurposed the word “sidewalk” to refer to a related but distinct British English or non-English concept, particularly one that depends on a third country’s laws, then miscommunication is inevitable. It’d be as if Indianans commandeered the word “motorway” to refer to an elliptical auto racing track (true story). Maybe that’s justifiable, but if we want to settle these debates, we need to take a step back and explain where we’re coming from. What is the word, in its original language, that each of us is promoting? How is it defined, and why is this definition the optimal definition of sidewalk in OSM?
I don’t recall the video – version 2.0 was over five years ago. But a lakeside promenade, as you’re describing it, would only be a sidewalk if it runs beside a road that also rings the lake. It was probably just an oversight.
See the talk page discussion. You had unilaterally rewritten this gallery to suit your perspective, which apparently was not shared by whoever originally created the gallery. Both versions have caused a lot of befuddlement among North American mappers. To a less experienced mapper, it isn’t merely incorrect; it’s incoherent. But maybe that’s just because the gallery needs better examples and more explanation?
I think you’ve proved my point from the wiki talk page discussion. In the U.S., there have always been shoulders that pedestrians use informally. Even the states that categorically ban pedestrians from roadways still allow pedestrians to hug the edge of the roadway if there aren’t any other suitable pedestrian facilities. (Some states explicitly allow cyclists to use motorway shoulders for the same reason.)
As a fairly recent safety measure, transportation departments have begun endorsing the conversion of some shoulders to “pedestrian lanes” as a “quick build” precursor to an actual physical sidewalk. The only physical difference is the painted pictogram, flexible bollards, and some signs. The only legal difference is that pedestrians are no longer in a legal gray area for walking on one. If you haven’t encountered one of these pedestrian lanes before, you’re more likely to refer to their European counterparts as shoulders, even though they only visually resemble shoulders.
I’m not sure if this was irony, but for what it’s worth, various passages on that page indicate that shoulders aren’t exclusive to motorways. If they are, we’ll need your help coming up with another word for the majority of shoulders that aren’t along motorways and also aren’t primarily intended for pedestrians.
By the way, “traveled way” is obscure jargon. Most American English speakers have no word for this concept, but some might refer collectively to “the travel lanes”. To generalize:
through lanes + turn lanes = travel lanes
travel lanes + buffer + bike lane + street parking + hard shoulder = roadway
roadway + curb + soft shoulder + verge/berm/tree lawn + sidewalk + greenspace + noise barrier = right of way
footway:right=lane seems like a pretty elegant solution to me. We don’t worry about renderers or routers mistaking a street for a cycleway just because it has a cycleway:right=lane tag; why should it be different with footway?
And where do you see sidewalk= being used for pedestrian lanes in Taginfo? How can you be sure what sidewalk:*:kerb= is for, which can be sidewalks without kerbs, but still with other barriers.
You are changing the central idea of “sidewalk” from a physical walkway to one encompassing marked or signposted areas only. The level of infrastructure and comfort is then in doubt, not confidently assumed. Alternatively as I said, lack of kerb can still mean there are railings or other protection, but sidewalk:*:separation= has not been used yet.
The sidewalk= vs cycleway= comparison is not about the syntax. It is about the same physical condition being a cycleway:*=lane for bikes, while you force pedestrian lanes to use sidewalk:*= with the only reason being it exists, ignoring its semantics. sidewalk:*=separate would not be applicable for pedestrian lanes. The entire set of concept is not transferable from sidewalks to pedestrian lanes.
| 
In the U.S., there have always been shoulders that pedestrians use informally. Even the states that categorically ban pedestrians from roadways still allow pedestrians to hug the edge of the roadway if there aren’t any other suitable pedestrian facilities. (Some states explicitly allow cyclists to use motorway shoulders for the same reason.)