In which case, I would deem that part of 377, as not for pedestrians.
As a side note, in Roanoke, there is also “North US Highway 377” : North US Highway 377 in Roanoke, Texas - CityStrides , which is south of the aforementioned piece of 377, and this part is OK for running/walking.
So, I’m at loss for the right thing to do, and would like some advice.
Thank you
Since clicking the 377 link(s) does not show the city line, here’s a screenshot of the area in question:
I looked at this on OSM and it seems like there is a discrepancy between the city boundary in OSM and where CS displays the city boundary.
OSM has the city boundary at the creek or river just like the city maps you shared does. To me it looks like there are nodes on Highway 377 in between what CS thinks the boundary is and what the boundary actually is in OSM.
So this portion of the highway actually IS in the city. CS just needs to update where it is displaying the boundary.
Regarding whether the highway is runable is a whole different debate. You’d have to check the legalities of it and if pedestrians aren’t allowed you can code it as such in OSM.
I don’t really know the standards for marking pedestrian access in OSM.
The highway is coded as a Primary Road which I believe is the convention for state highways, so CS will pick it up as a street that can be run.
The way to remove it from CS would be to change “allowed access” value to “pedestrians:no”, but I would always err on the side of leaving it as is for the sake of OSM integrity. Its a difficult situation because while it is unsafe to run on it, that doesn’t mean you can’t run on it. My interpretation is that OSM should reflect what is legal, no if it is unsafe… but idk
You could try to find some low traffic time (early Saturday morning??) to hit it up.
Totally agree with that! The parts I have done, to the south, were easy enough… But avoiding rush hour is a great idea! I also run towards oncoming traffic. It’s amazing how many people don’t follow this simple safety tip.
I like to avoid Pedestrian=No too. However, there is one road near my house with a small piece I’d label as such. It’s a flyover bridge connecting our main US highway that runs through the middle of town to the road to the nearest Interstate highway. Most of the connecting road is pedestrian allowable due to the size of the right of way; while it’s not always fun to run on the unkempt grass it is doable. However, the bridge itself is a highspeed roadway with no shoulder. No human being should be walking or running on that bridge.
Luckily for me, it’s also (barely) outside the city limits, so the question is moot. At least until the next round of annexations.
Note that the lifecycle prefixes will keep the street in the database, but as far as I know, all the major renderers will ignore them. This is the correct behavior - the street isn’t there
Fairly easy resolution. I have a few situations like this. I have just updated them to be Private Driveways while maintaining the road name. This takes it out of the CS queue. I have updated Kennedy Drive for you.
, and not worry about the double blue line. After all, it is all about the nodes.