# Classifying Roads by Name / Centering Nodes to Avoid Doubling / Extending Node Proximity?

Lately, I’ve found myself needing to run the same wider or separated streets twice on each side just to access the nodes that have been populated on both sides of street. It’s officially one single street, but sometimes the safest pathway is on one side or the other, but that makes you miss nodes on other sides of the street.
Example:

I ran down a very long street that has the west-bound side on one end, east-bound lanes on the other. I would have to run it twice to get all of the nodes for this single-named street. And many times, a certain side of the street is the only place one can run safely.

Is there a way:

• Nodes can be more centrally positioned on roads with a single name, almost on a median, so they can be counted in a single pass?
• Maybe the proximity to nodes can be extended a bit to resolve this issue? Sometimes I swear I was right on a node and, for whatever reason, it still didn’t show up as completed by being just the tiniest bit off.

All of this is being asked knowing that I don’t know if you can control the logic of where nodes are positioned. But it’s frustrating when nodes are positioned both sides of a single wide street because the road has been split in two or is just especially wide.

I like running, so I don’t mind running a street twice, once in each direction…

1 Like

I like running, too—but not running the same street in a dangerous section (no shoulder/sidewalk, etc.).

1 Like

I think this is more of an OSM change that needs to be made than anything else. I don’t think James has the capability to center nodes on separated streets. And even if he did, there would need to be some way to identify what is actually just a street with a median versus a street that splits more dramatically.

Marking the unsafe half of the street as foot=no on OSM is the best solution here.

I will say I do miss nodes like this pretty often as well. I’ve been trying to clean them up but it can be annoying. When I think there is a possibility of this happening I try to build my routes such that I return for the other side if necessary.

`foot=no` is for when you are not legally allowed to walk somewhere. That doesn’t include “it’s probably a bad idea to walk there”. In the case of there being a sidewalk, there is `foot=use_sidepath`, though that won’t help with getting it out of citystrides. Some mappers have used `foot=discouraged` for these situations, but it is not (yet?) in official recommended use (and rather subjective, and also not considered by citystrides)

1 Like

I wonder is the proximity to node requirement is affected by latitude or map projection in some way? I live at about 60 degrees north and I feel I definitely would get credit for those nodes.

Could be more zoomed out than I realize though