Changeset: 56429521
Added houses.
Closed by carlotta4th
Tags
changesets_count | 308 |
---|---|
created_by | iD 2.6.1 |
host | https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit |
imagery_used | Bing aerial imagery |
locale | en-US |
Discussion
-
Comment from Constable
hi there, thanks for contributing!
Watch out, those sidewalks are not connected to the rest of the road network, you should always connect them to the roads they cross, and you should also connect them to the roads where road crossing (zebra, traffic signal,...) are in place. Otherwise routing services won't recognize those trails/sidewalks.
You also mapped twice the curch, if you look at the map you'll see two crosses on the curch, that's because you added the amenity=place_of_worship tag twice, once on the building, once on the area. I'd remove the area, there's no need to have a religious are like that, I mean the parking is not used to pray, so the amenity=place of w. is not suitable for that area. Please also square that church building, select it and press "s" on your keyboard.
Thanks, feel free to get in touch by replying here if you need some help.
Cheers -
Comment from carlotta4th
Thanks for the feedback. I'd heard varying reports on what should be done with sidewalks and I was never able to clarify what OSM's official stance on that was--do you happen to have a link? I'd love to verify this. =)
As for the church thing, that was from merging an existing point with an existing area, I actually didn't create either of them I was just trying to declutter the map with unnecessary double tags and didn't realize that even after the merge there was STILL a duplicate. XD The churches in this area were all marked up weird, but I'll give them a quick look over again and see if there's any further tidying I can do.
Thanks!
-
Comment from Constable
hi there, thanks for your reply.
Looks to me like you did remove that duplicate "place of worship" tag and you also squared the church building, thanks, well done.
Have a look at the sidewalks wiki page if you want to find out more about them https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/SidewalksHere instead you can understand what I was referring to when I was talking about connecting sidewalks with the rest of the road network
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Unconnected_ways
The sidewalks here near the church are still not connected to the roads they cross.
Thanks for your help!
Cheers -
Comment from carlotta4th
That link lists two different ways to list sidewalks (either as included as a tag in the road itself or separately like I have) so that's already a bit confusing why they would have two different ways to do it--but also the link they provide as an example of sidewalks (Washington Capitol Hill https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/38.89133/-77.02059 ) seems to look how I've already mapped them out, with the main difference being that the sidewalks cross and connect to roads (as you described). ...But isn't that an odd way to map? I understand that path navigation software can do things easier if they're all connected, but one thing I saw over and over when I first started mapping over a year ago was "avoid connecting shapes since that makes them hard to move later" and "do not map anything that isn't actually there."
When a crosswalk exists I make sure to map it out but 90% of the streets in this area are just residential and don't have any crosswalks. Wouldn't adding them be "creating things that aren't there" and making it harder to move things in the future with unnecessary connections?
-
Comment from Constable
Hi there, yeah, those two methods of mapping sidewalks work as well with cycleways. If you look at the osm help forum website you should find some discussions about the whole sidewalk thing, I mean, someone likes to have sidewalks on the map, someone else find them useless and reckon them as a problem as they contribute to clog the map render (there should have been a never-ending discussion about that on the talk mailing list in the last few years). I think those sidewalks in Washington are well done, any decent routing service for pedestrian should be able to show a sidewalks only route as they all look well connected to the road network around them, which is definitely a nice thing.
About the "avoid connecting shapes since that makes them hard to move later" and "do not map anything that isn't actually there". Well, the second one is the golden rule, we have to add only real objects, end of the story. Sidewalks are real, so you could decide to add them to the map, zebra crossing and stuff like that are real as well, so you should connect those sidewalks when they do cross a road. The first one instead sounds to me a bit generic ad likely to be misinterpreted. I mean, when talking about areas/shapes I do tend to agree, but talking about ways I do definitely disagree (roads, trails, sidewalks, rivers are all “ways”, buildings, lakes, pitches, parks,… are almost always “areas”). Connecting roads at junctions/crossings is another golden rule, the same works for trails, rivers, sidewalks,... (we have specific crossing tags, see the highway=crossing wiki page). I’m pretty sure that “avoid connecting shapes since that makes them hard to move later” refers to elements like this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/414033716, which doesn’t share its boundary nodes with the roads running around it. Connecting it wouldn’t be correct for multiple reason, I do agree with that then. -
Comment from Constable
I forgot to answer your last question. Well, look at this point on the aerial imagery https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5417574482
I'm pretty sure the sidewalks here allows pedestrians to walk down on the road, there's no grass separating the sidewalk from the road, I do tend to think that engineers designing that sidewalk built it so that people can cross the road here, am I wrong? I'm from Europe and I'm not very familiar with US sidewalks, so I might be wrong.
Do you live here? do you use those sidewalks? when you find yourself at that point what do you do if you have to go south along 320?When I first wrote you (few days ago) I wasn't actually talking about this crossing like the one with Brunley Court, I was talking about those near the church instead:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/442620337 and the other two just south of the church.
Those three have to be connected with those service roads going into the parking lot.
Thanks for your help! -
Comment from carlotta4th
Yeah, it's kind of tricky. Most of the residential areas have kind of "implied" crossing points, but rarely explicit sidewalk or crosswalks unless it's a busy enough street to warrant it. I make sure to mark crosswalks when they're there, of course, but I'm not sure if I should be making crossings where there technically aren't any just so the map system is "connected."
But as for sidewalks crossing driveways/ parking aisles/etc, I see what you mean now and I'll try to make sure to connect those from now on. It may take me a while to fix this area in that regard due to irl stuff but I'll try to get that adjusted over time. Thanks for the input!
Ways (1-20 of 27)
- 1
- 2
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |