Proposal:Pedestrian lane
(Redirected from Proposed features/Pedestrian lane)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Pedestrian lane | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Rejected (inactive) |
| Proposed by: | SelfishSeahorse |
| Tagging: | pedestrian_lane=* |
| Applies to: | 
|
| Definition: | A marked lane on the roadway, designated for pedestrians |
| Statistics: |
|
| Draft started: | 2019-11-01 |
| RFC start: | 2019-11-01 |
| Vote start: | 2019-11-18 |
| Vote end: | 2019-12-02 |
Proposal
A pedestrian lane is a marked lane on a roadway, designated for pedestrians.
A new tag pedestrian_lane=* is introduced.
Different countries have their own rules as to whether vehicles are allowed to drive on a pedestrian lanes if they don't endanger pedestrians. Adding this legal informations to every single pedestrian lane in one country would be highly inefficient and were also in conflict with the "Don't map your local legislation, if not bound to objects in reality" rule. Instead, the legal informations should be collected in a table on the wiki (similar to OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions). (And as soon as there will be an established way to save defaults in the OSM database, they should be transferred to it.)
The tag pedestrian_lane=* is not intended to be used for shoulders (emergency stopping lanes), use shoulder=* for them. Pedestrians lanes usually have different road markings than shoulders, may be signed and are usually narrower than shoulders. While the primary use of shoulders is to provide motorists a place to pull out in the event of an emergency or breakdown, in some countries it is allowed to walk or cycle on shoulders.
Rationale
Pedestrian lanes exist in Switzerland, Japan, the United States, Germany and likely in other countries too. Currently, there isn't an official tag for pedestrian lanes and it seems that they haven't been mapped yet.
In a recent discussion on the tagging mailing list, some users have suggested using the sidewalk=* key for pedestrian lanes too. However, the writer of this proposal thinks that this is a bad idea because pedestrian lanes aren't sidewalks: a sidewalk is physically separated from the roadway, usually by a curb, or else by railings or road verges. Therefore it provids some security to pedestrians using them. In contrast, a pedestrian lane is part of the roadway and is only visually separated from the traffic, thus not providing any security for pedestrians (or only very little). Besides, blind people can't make out a pedestrian lane.
If sidewalk=right + sidewalk:right=lane or a similar tag combination were used for pedestrian lanes and navigation applications aren't aware that this combination doesn't represent a sidewalk, they may guide a pedestrian along a route with only pedestrian lanes instead of safer route with sidewalks.
Examples
Tagging
Add pedestrian_lane=* to the road way that has a pedestrian lane. Possible values are right, left and both. right means that the pedestrian lane is on the right side in the direction of the way, left means it's on the left side and both means that there's a pedestrian lane on both sides of the road.
External discussions
- Tagging mailing list: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?, October 2019
- Tagging mailing list: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane, November 2019
Comments
Please comment on the discussion page.
Voting
Voting closed
Voting on this proposal has been closed.
It was rejected with 8 votes for, 5 votes against and 1 abstention.
I approve this proposal. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. footway=lane is a existing tag, key value combination, a better tag, *:right, *:left, *:both is also a approved method, no need for a other tag, a key with a other method. explanation methods --AllroadsNL (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- I would not expect vehicles to be permitted to drive on "footway=lane", as it would look like a kind of footway to me. Indeed I would have preferred a proposal where it would have been stated that these pedestrian_lanes can be driven on, and if in some jurisdictions there had been similarly looking lanes where vehicles could not drive on, they could have made a different tag proposal for their situation. --Dieterdreist (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- footway=shared_lane like a cycleway=shared_lane, if you can solve it with a value, you do no need a new key (a new method). --AllroadsNL (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- I agree there could be alternative tagging methods, but footway=shared_lane doesn’t nail it for me, without further information this would sound like a footway with bicycle access, not one with access for trucks and heavy motorcycles. —Dieterdreist (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- more information --AllroadsNL (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Does not work for me. See footway=* which is about "Sidewalk tags for footways". How could this become a feature for motor vehicles? A subtag or value should not contradict the general definition of a key. Now in this case, maybe we have to adjust the general definition of the key, but as it stands, your suggested tag is not working. --Dieterdreist (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- If it does not work for you, then cycleway=* does not work either for you, explanation cycleway as a key and as a value see Netherlands, the situation is exactly the same, footway versus cycleway. Cycleway on a road is used a lot, so can footway (established key)! sidewalk=* on a road and footway=sidewalk on the distinct way. sidewalk=separate on road. This road has a sidewalk but it is mapped using a separate way. All fit. People have to decide is it a sidewalk (next to the road) or a footway=lane on the road. --AllroadsNL (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- I still would reject the idea that those swiss pedestrian lanes that have been presented by the proponent on the mailing list, are comparable to sidewalks. Sidewalks can not be driven on, are not part of a carriageway, etc. --Dieterdreist (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- swiss image?pdf 102 5-7? I agree (last line), the descriptions, people must choose, what it is, as explained above. Example on this page (upper right), lane on the carriageway (road). As other mentioned by others, it is not only the choice of a new key or not, but also all the values, methods, that are needed, by mixed use, important, if there is a bicycle image with a pedestrian image in the lane, as a example, then this could be a cycleway=lane , with footway=shared_cyleway. Just like a bicycle image on a busway lane, cycleway=shared_busway. All the same method. No need to invent something new. --AllroadsNL (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sidewalks can be *physically* driven on, except where the authorities have installed HVM barriers (bollards etc); whether they can legally be driven on depends on local regulations and the vehicle in question. In places with narrow roads it is customary for wider vehicles to pass with one side up on the kerb; in other places it is permitted to park halfway on the sidewalk and halfway on the carriageway. Ecatmur (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- You might be able to physically drive on some / many sidewalks, but they are not part of the carriageway (as defined e.g. by the UN convention on road traffic, Vienna 1968, and as you seem to agree) and parking is not the same as driving (in places where I know the legal situation, parking on sidewalks is only permitted if there is an additional sign which permits it). --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sidewalks can be *physically* driven on, except where the authorities have installed HVM barriers (bollards etc); whether they can legally be driven on depends on local regulations and the vehicle in question. In places with narrow roads it is customary for wider vehicles to pass with one side up on the kerb; in other places it is permitted to park halfway on the sidewalk and halfway on the carriageway. Ecatmur (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- swiss image?pdf 102 5-7? I agree (last line), the descriptions, people must choose, what it is, as explained above. Example on this page (upper right), lane on the carriageway (road). As other mentioned by others, it is not only the choice of a new key or not, but also all the values, methods, that are needed, by mixed use, important, if there is a bicycle image with a pedestrian image in the lane, as a example, then this could be a cycleway=lane , with footway=shared_cyleway. Just like a bicycle image on a busway lane, cycleway=shared_busway. All the same method. No need to invent something new. --AllroadsNL (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- @AllroadsNL: footway=* is only an established key when used on a highway=footway, but not when used on a road, see key:footway --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- I still would reject the idea that those swiss pedestrian lanes that have been presented by the proponent on the mailing list, are comparable to sidewalks. Sidewalks can not be driven on, are not part of a carriageway, etc. --Dieterdreist (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- If it does not work for you, then cycleway=* does not work either for you, explanation cycleway as a key and as a value see Netherlands, the situation is exactly the same, footway versus cycleway. Cycleway on a road is used a lot, so can footway (established key)! sidewalk=* on a road and footway=sidewalk on the distinct way. sidewalk=separate on road. This road has a sidewalk but it is mapped using a separate way. All fit. People have to decide is it a sidewalk (next to the road) or a footway=lane on the road. --AllroadsNL (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Does not work for me. See footway=* which is about "Sidewalk tags for footways". How could this become a feature for motor vehicles? A subtag or value should not contradict the general definition of a key. Now in this case, maybe we have to adjust the general definition of the key, but as it stands, your suggested tag is not working. --Dieterdreist (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- more information --AllroadsNL (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Dieterdreist: Whether or not vehicles are allowed to drive on a pedestrian lane is written in the law, but can't be verified on the ground. Tagging this would go against Good practice#Don't map your local legislation, if not bound to objects in reality. This is the same as with sidewalks: depending on the jurisdiction cyclists are or aren't allowed to use them, cars are or aren't allowed to stop or park on them. Tagging all these rules wouldn't only make mapping more complicated, but would likely also lead to mistakes by users that don't know the law and would lead to much retagging if the law changes. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- I agree there could be alternative tagging methods, but footway=shared_lane doesn’t nail it for me, without further information this would sound like a footway with bicycle access, not one with access for trucks and heavy motorcycles. —Dieterdreist (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- footway=shared_lane like a cycleway=shared_lane, if you can solve it with a value, you do no need a new key (a new method). --AllroadsNL (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- I would not expect vehicles to be permitted to drive on "footway=lane", as it would look like a kind of footway to me. Indeed I would have preferred a proposal where it would have been stated that these pedestrian_lanes can be driven on, and if in some jurisdictions there had been similarly looking lanes where vehicles could not drive on, they could have made a different tag proposal for their situation. --Dieterdreist (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Where I live in Italy sometimes there are lanes for pedestrians alone but often also combined with cycle lanes, mixed or side by side. I think this proposal should also take into account the relationship between pedestrian and bicycle lanes. How are they mapped when there are both? How is it defined if they are mixed or segregated? --sorcrosc (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't include shared foot and cycle–lanes in this proposal because they don't exist in my area and i don't know their legal regulations at places where they exist. They can still be defined later (either by defining a sub-tag or a new key like e.g. foot_cycle_lane=*). Separate foot and cycle–lanes can be tagged by combining the proposed key pedestrian_lane=* with cycleway:*=lane. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Needed in many countries where sidewalks end and peds are forced to use part of the road painted for them. --Javbw (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. this key/tagging need more discussion and not only some week between the idea and the start for the voting --Luschi (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. This solves a problem I run into regularly --Glassman (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I think this is a really good idea and that there is a need to collect and store this information in OpenStreetMap. I'm voting no because I believe the tagging strategy could use more feedback and development regarding the intended audience(s) and to what extent it represents pedestrian infrastructure and connections, e.g. navigation for people with vision impairments, pedestrian routing in general, and interfacing with other pedestrian data. --Nbolten (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. footway=lane is sufficient, let's approve that instead. --Ecatmur (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Ecatmur:: Could you please explain why we should choose footway[:left/right]=lane instead of pedestrian_lane=both/left/right? footway=* currently describes the type of highway=footway and we already use a separate key, sidewalk=*, for sidewalks. The proposed syntax for pedestrian_lane=* is the same as for sidewalk=* (left, right and both are values), while that of footway[:left/right]=lane were different (left and right are part of the key), what would probably result in confusion. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see why we need 3 tags when cycleway gets by perfectly well with just one. An on-road foot lane is very similar to an on-road cycle lane, so it will reduce confusion to use a similar tagging scheme. Ecatmur (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that it's not perfect to have different tagging schemes for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructures. However, it's likely too late to replace a tag (sidewalk=*) with more than 1.5 million uses. Besides i prefer having different, clear keys for different features. What if there happens to be a lane and a physically separated path? --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not proposing replacing sidewalk as a key at this point; I just don't like the idea of further divergence and introducing another term (Latinate "pedestrian" vs. Germanic "foot"). I've never seen a foot lane immediately adjacent to a sidewalk (with only a kerb to separate them), although I have seen the equivalent in cycle infrastructure (an on-road cycle lane favoured by commuters and sport cyclists, next to a cycle track favoured by utility and leisure cyclists). Ecatmur (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- 1. sidewalk=left/right/both and footway[:left/right]=lane would have two different syntaxes, which were confusing. 2. footway=lane is a contradiction, as a lane (part of a road/path) isn't a footway (separate path). 3. "Pedestrian lane" is used by the Federal Highway Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation to refer to lanes designated for pedestrians (see this publication). 4. We're already using the term pedestrian in highway=pedestrian. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not proposing replacing sidewalk as a key at this point; I just don't like the idea of further divergence and introducing another term (Latinate "pedestrian" vs. Germanic "foot"). I've never seen a foot lane immediately adjacent to a sidewalk (with only a kerb to separate them), although I have seen the equivalent in cycle infrastructure (an on-road cycle lane favoured by commuters and sport cyclists, next to a cycle track favoured by utility and leisure cyclists). Ecatmur (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that it's not perfect to have different tagging schemes for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructures. However, it's likely too late to replace a tag (sidewalk=*) with more than 1.5 million uses. Besides i prefer having different, clear keys for different features. What if there happens to be a lane and a physically separated path? --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see why we need 3 tags when cycleway gets by perfectly well with just one. An on-road foot lane is very similar to an on-road cycle lane, so it will reduce confusion to use a similar tagging scheme. Ecatmur (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Ecatmur:: Could you please explain why we should choose footway[:left/right]=lane instead of pedestrian_lane=both/left/right? footway=* currently describes the type of highway=footway and we already use a separate key, sidewalk=*, for sidewalks. The proposed syntax for pedestrian_lane=* is the same as for sidewalk=* (left, right and both are values), while that of footway[:left/right]=lane were different (left and right are part of the key), what would probably result in confusion. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. "However, the writer of this proposal thinks that this is a bad idea because pedestrian lanes aren't sidewalks: a sidewalk is physically separated from the roadway, usually by a curb, or else by railings or road verges. Therefore it provids some security to pedestrians using them. In contrast, a pedestrian lane is part of the roadway and is only visually separated from the traffic, thus not providing any security for pedestrians (or only very little). Besides, blind people can't make out a pedestrian lane." I disagree with this description. A sidewalk is a sidewalk. It is not synonymous with a "raised sidewalk" or "separate sidewalk". Adding this key would add to the confusipm in footway/sidewalk and lane tagging. --Kovposch (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Kovposch:: A sidewalk is raised or otherwise physically separated from the roadway. Please see here and here. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- @SelfishSeahorse: See my other reply here. My question is can this be made compatible with other footway and shoulder features. For example, the Switzerland photo you used says "vehicles are allowed use the pedestrian lane, but only if pedestrians aren't impeded.". Japan, where people have cited, is even more vague. In the US, pedestrian lane seems to be considered as pedestrian exclusive, with "ped only" marking. Do we rely on the respective national rules for this, or should we mark it clear whether the space is pedestrian priority/exclusive, if marked/signed on the ground? It would be better to refer to the cycleway=* scheme directly for consistency , introducing values like footway=lane (mentioned above), footway=track, footway=shoulder, etc. There's also cycleway:lane=* "in use". 2-1 roads from Europe is coming to more widespread knowledge. It would be good to clarify such interactions. Kovposch (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- (1) If there happen to be different pedestrian lanes in a single jurisdiction, it is a good idea to tag this (e.g. with a sub-tag like pedestrian_lane:type=*). However the different rules of different jurisdictions should not be tagged according to Good practice#Don't map your local legislation, if not bound to objects in reality. (2) For footway=track we already have sidewalk=* with >1.5m uses and for shoulders we have shoulder=*. Besides footway=shoulder doesn't make sense: even if pedestrians are allowed to use a shoulder, it remains a shoulder; a shoulder isn't a type of footway. (3) Regarding 2-1 roads: the lanes on both roadsides are combined foot-and-cycle lanes or cycle lanes, not shoulders (emergency stopping lane). --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- 1. Well, my idea is to re-use the scheme of cycleway:lane=*, like parking:lane=*, instead of inventing another *:type= key. 2.1 That's my question below: Would https://www.roadsbridges.com/sites/rb/files/%2A%2ARainier_After1.jpg, https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/large-flower-pots-on-john-st-form-a-barrier-for-a-pedestrian-lane-picture-id472565542?s=2048x2048 with such barriers be considered either a sidewalk or pedestrian lane? This German article have different examples for comparison: http://dschneble.tssd.de/blog/?p=6005. These are especially common at street corners. In cycleways, it would be classified as a cycleway=track. As a footway, it is not the same as a flat sidewalk separated by kerbstone or mounted railing. 2.2 footway=shoulder is the same as cycleway=shoulder. There is a shoulder=*, and pedestrians should use it (without explicit priority). 3. Things like 2-1 roads is just the reason why I would raise the need of showing different features roadside, to clarify their usability by vehicles. Kovposch (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- (1) We already have two different tagging schemes for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructures. I'm not happy with that either, but i guess that the benefits from changing sidewalk=* to a misleading footway=track don't outweigh the costs. (2.1) Not sure about your first example – what's the purpose of this small area and what do the chessboard road markings mean? I wouldn't call footpaths separated from the road by flower pots or guard rails classical sidewalks and i don't know if they are tagged footway=sidewalk (according to the definition on the wiki, they area). Anyway, because of their physical separation from the roadway, it makes sense to map them as separate ways. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- 1. Well, my idea is to re-use the scheme of cycleway:lane=*, like parking:lane=*, instead of inventing another *:type= key. 2.1 That's my question below: Would https://www.roadsbridges.com/sites/rb/files/%2A%2ARainier_After1.jpg, https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/large-flower-pots-on-john-st-form-a-barrier-for-a-pedestrian-lane-picture-id472565542?s=2048x2048 with such barriers be considered either a sidewalk or pedestrian lane? This German article have different examples for comparison: http://dschneble.tssd.de/blog/?p=6005. These are especially common at street corners. In cycleways, it would be classified as a cycleway=track. As a footway, it is not the same as a flat sidewalk separated by kerbstone or mounted railing. 2.2 footway=shoulder is the same as cycleway=shoulder. There is a shoulder=*, and pedestrians should use it (without explicit priority). 3. Things like 2-1 roads is just the reason why I would raise the need of showing different features roadside, to clarify their usability by vehicles. Kovposch (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- (1) If there happen to be different pedestrian lanes in a single jurisdiction, it is a good idea to tag this (e.g. with a sub-tag like pedestrian_lane:type=*). However the different rules of different jurisdictions should not be tagged according to Good practice#Don't map your local legislation, if not bound to objects in reality. (2) For footway=track we already have sidewalk=* with >1.5m uses and for shoulders we have shoulder=*. Besides footway=shoulder doesn't make sense: even if pedestrians are allowed to use a shoulder, it remains a shoulder; a shoulder isn't a type of footway. (3) Regarding 2-1 roads: the lanes on both roadsides are combined foot-and-cycle lanes or cycle lanes, not shoulders (emergency stopping lane). --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- While I am not happy with this proposal (is not sufficiently defined), I agree that these aren't sidewalks. A sidewalk is a dedicated way for pedestrians, these here are lanes.--Dieterdreist (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Dieterdreist: There are some footways that are at-grade and not raised, only separated by a barriers delineators. I'm wondering whether this level of removable / semi-permanent / semi-fixed physical separation would be considered pedestrian lane, cf cycleway=track. According to FHWA Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks guide for example, it is. Kovposch (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- @SelfishSeahorse: See my other reply here. My question is can this be made compatible with other footway and shoulder features. For example, the Switzerland photo you used says "vehicles are allowed use the pedestrian lane, but only if pedestrians aren't impeded.". Japan, where people have cited, is even more vague. In the US, pedestrian lane seems to be considered as pedestrian exclusive, with "ped only" marking. Do we rely on the respective national rules for this, or should we mark it clear whether the space is pedestrian priority/exclusive, if marked/signed on the ground? It would be better to refer to the cycleway=* scheme directly for consistency , introducing values like footway=lane (mentioned above), footway=track, footway=shoulder, etc. There's also cycleway:lane=* "in use". 2-1 roads from Europe is coming to more widespread knowledge. It would be good to clarify such interactions. Kovposch (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Kovposch:: A sidewalk is raised or otherwise physically separated from the roadway. Please see here and here. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I don't think an undocumented and barely used tag like footway=lane is a sufficient replacement for a 'pedestrian lane' with a more clear meaning. --Doublah (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Fasse (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Sdicke (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --GiantOSM (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I missed the voting period but I agree with the proposal, I agree these aren't a sidewalk which is physically separated, and act more like a cyclelane, but for pedestrians. --Aharvey (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
