Pedestrian areas are still in CS and I’m glad they are. I want to run everything that’s run/walkable, and I want credit for it! To that end, I still don’t understand why pedestrian streets (highway=pedestrian) are included but foot paths (highway=footway) aren’t. From the perspective/ethos of CityStrides there should be no difference. There are a ton of named foot paths where I live and I’ve done them all for no credit.
1 Like
I’m all for allowing all paths that allow pedestrians on citystrides personally. Its the roads that are clearly not pedestrian friendly that I have a problem with, but I guess that’s down to us, managing the OSM.
1 Like
One just got added in OSM for Brisbane with the nodes around the perimeter of the area, which doesn’t really make sense for CityStrides.
All the street data comes from OpenStreetMap. If something is incorrect in CityStrides, it should be edited in https://www.openstreetmap.org
There’s some helpful info in the wiki inside the forum: Wiki - CityStrides Community
There are also a lot of helpful people if you have questions (or want to ask someone to make the edits for you). We’re already in the right place for that 
I can edit OSM and have before, but in this case OSM seems correct, as it is a “square”, which CS picks up as something to complete. I was just agreeing with you that this is an area instead of a line, and providing an example which shows that the nodes are around the outside.
Ah, gotcha … I thought I had some things in place that would avoid these types of squares/areas. I’ll need to look again.
1 Like
I have done my share of running the perimeter of squares. Just see it as a nice challenge. It’s runnable
3 Likes
I agree, as my goal is to fill up my LifeMap I don’t see any reason to avoid a square…
3 Likes
Based on the tagging for Way: King George Square (1192039076) | OpenStreetMap
It looks like I could ignore place=square tags. There’s also area=yes which would probably work.
But I hope you don’t. We need more runnable/countable elements in CityStrides, not less!
Keep pedestrian areas and include named foot paths, says I.
1 Like
Keeping these feels like an awkward choice, given the goal is to run every street 
I’m interested in hearing more opinions (ideally with example links), though.
There’s a discussion going back to the original post of this thread in 2020, I didn’t tabulate it but I think more of us who have posted are in favor of having more stuff to run and complete…
Consider this: unnamed roads, trails, track roads, and even named driveways and parking aisles are not included even though they are a road/street and are runnable, but if the former got a name in an OSM update people trying to complete their cities go back to run them. Whereas those of us who have completed a city may go run these elements regardless just to add more purple to our Lifemap. Maybe that’s where my perspective comes from, the terminal CityStrider who has finished his cit[ies] and wishes there was more to run, it just feels wrong to take stuff away when not for safety/legal reasons.
Screenshot is of Praça Natália Correa and two adjoining pedestrian areas as well. It has a place name plaque, appears on SIG with defined dimensions, etc. And it’s runnable! What’s funny is the service road/parking aisle to the north of it is unnamed, but I ran it anyways to access the far corner nodes of the pedestrian area. When/if I ever engage Hard Mode I’ll go back and get that SW corner too!
1 Like
Okay, since you asked for it 
I have been referring to the project as “every single STREET” and that’s how I think of what should be a node in CityStrides.
For my home city of Seattle, I’ve been viewing that as everything that’s a named, public-access right of way. Some local OpenStreetMap editors pointed me at the King County GIS (ArcGIS Web Application) as an important reference, and I also go by my on-the-ground experience: Is the road marked as private, or gated? Are there city street signs present?
This gets iffy in some places, e.g. gated unpaved access roads on the University of Washington campus. For example, Canal Rd NE is a gated gravel road accessible only to UW maintenance vehicles (and pedestrian/cycle traffic).
As you can see, I’ve run it a time or two 
Despite its limited access and other un-street-like characteristics, it’s definitely on the county GIS map.
(Interestingly, so is Douglas Road (in red), which no longer exists, and is marked on the OpenStreetsMap as “removed and revegetated”.)
On the other hand, we have a weird mix of (per GIS and OpenStreetMap) roads and not-roads elsewhere on the UW campus. Take, for example, the area around Drumheller Fountain, at the heart of the campus.
Benton Lane NE is a street per GIS and OSM., while NE Lewis Ln and NE Grant Ln, both of them paved thoroughfares a bit narrower than a standard road, occasionally accessed by motor vehicles, are not.
Should they be included as “streets”? Heck if I know, but they are certainly named thoroughfares and are equally (more) accessible to the public compared to Canal Rd.
If we aren’t going to count them, we shouldn’t count Klickitat Lane NE, also on campus, which is a footpath that could, in a pinch, accomodate a single vehicle driving with great caution. On the county GIS it’s a gray dotted line, but currently it’s a “pedstrian street” on OSM.
I don’t know what the correct answer is. As someone who has completed 100% of streets I think I am leaning toward “more streets” – but within reason. And mainly, I would like some agreed-upon consistency in designating nodes!
1 Like
My understanding is that there is consistency in the way Citystrides identifies nodes, the issue is in OSM. Due to the collaborative nature of the project there is quite a bit of variation in the mapping, both locally and internationally.
The upside is that you can make the changes to make it consistent yourself, CS will update nodes accordingly 
You can find the import query here CityStrides Street Query - Google Sheets
2 Likes
Yes, that’s my understanding too. I actively edit OSM when I find discrepancies. I think the real question here is “what should the standard be”? If OSM editors disagree, then we get nodes going in and out of existence – examples locally include Pier 91 (limited access for cruise passengers only; was a street for a while, now it isn’t)…
… and the section of NE 105th St located in the Kraken IcePlex/Northgate Mall (doesn’t appear on King Co GIS, on-the-ground signage is that of the mall rather than the city, but a longtime Seattle OSM editor added it back after I removed it):
For what it is worth, I agree with the other mapper. Name is more than just county approved names, especially for a service road and especially if there is on the ground signage of that name.
I am in the camp of *run every street" and to me, the perimeter of an area is not a street and doesn’t seem appropriate.
Runnable? sure.
Running every STREET? nah.
2 Likes
I agree with JP Miller. Running through one of these pedestrian areas still doesn’t count as completing it, as you have to go around the whole perimeter. Then it just becomes an OSM node collection exercise.
2 Likes
I’ll kindly disagree re: perimter running and refer you to my earlier post Pedestrian area - #32 by kevincharlespels
All CityStrides is is a node collection exercise!
1 Like