Currently, if a Way is tagged as foot=no then it is excluded from CityStrides.
I’m thinking about adjusting this so that, if there’s a sidewalk tag (with a value other than ‘no’) then it would be included.
I’ve done a couple quick checks, and haven’t really seen much of a difference.
This overpass query is for Columbus, OH. It only adds a few Way entries, like this small section of East Town Street. In all the cases I’ve noticed so far, all it does is add/fill existing Streets in CityStrides - I haven’t noticed it create anything new (yet). Here’s East Town Street in CityStrides as an example of how the full street already exists, it would just fill in the middle gap.
If you find your city’s relation in OSM, you can swap out its ID in that query & re-run it to see your local results.
I like the idea. Definitely encountered this situation a few times when trying to correct streets that were not “runnable”.
Query won’t run for me right now, but I can imagine alot of highways with foot = no have sidewalks that won’t necessarily get you close enough to the nodes on a multiple lane road?
I haven’t been able to find an example of anything meaningful being added, but the world is big.
I also don’t know how this situation would be handled in OSM … maybe the multi-lane road would have multiple Way records, and each side would be tagged appropriately re: sidewalk, and that would resolve the issue in CityStrides.
Running the query, it seems that the sidewalk tag is not currently applied in streets in Oslo, Norway at the moment. If I understand correctly, these would be filled with nodes with the new query if tagged correctly with sidewalk tag. These are currently foot=no trunk roads
Right, this is an idea. It has not been implemented in the CityStrides code yet. I’m seeking input on how it looks in cities via the shared Overpass query.
I didn’t expect these to have nodes right now. I meant, if these streets were correctly tagged with foot = no and sidewalk != no, I would expect nodes to show up in the marked areas based on the original post here and these would be unreachable by foot
Oh! Gotcha! So the sidewalk is present in that section, but it’s isolated by stretches of highway that aren’t pedestrian friendly. This is a pretty good argument against the change.
Can you share a link to a nearby street? I can hunt around from there & see if there’s any other tagging that highlights these sections as something to avoid.
I think that could work, but I would have to see it to be sure. The previous system of excluding trunk roads always felt absurd, since some trunk roads are just residential streets with footpaths (sidewalks) on both sides. Adding trunk roads therefore pleased me, but has meant that I have done some 70mph streets with narrow verges, and with cars passing a couple of feet away. It’s not especially dangerous, and it’s not illegal (unlike walking on motorways), but it is quite unpleasant at times, especially when HGVs thunder past on a rainy day.
As to where the pavement (UK sense) is some distance from the actual road, I have experienced that even in villages before now, when a pavement cuts the corner at a bend and so on, and have had to get used to walking on the kerb.
Sorry for the confusion, I’m aware they don’t have the sidewalk tag and are not eligble, but they do however actually have sidewalks. If the sidewalk tag were added to these streets (as one could correctly do), it could cause a situation were a street has nodes because it has sidewalks, but due to multiple lanes and the sidewalks sometimes diverting some distance from the the actual road, parts of the street might not be reachable by foot.
Again, it seems that this tag is not widely used in Oslo so at the moment it wouldn’t cause any issues there, but I can imagine this being a case in other cities that are actually tagged correctly with sidewalk tag.
I haven’t been able to find an example of anything meaningful being added, but the world is big.
