complain about unreasonably narrow highway=pedestrian

[mkoniecz]

What steps will reproduce the problem?

1. Create way
2. Tag it highway=pedestrian width=0.5 name=Foobar
3. Run validator

What is the expected result?

Validator offers automatic fix to highway=footway

What happens instead?

Nothing.

Please provide any additional information below. Attach a screenshot if possible.

I propose 2 m as the edge value. Optionally 1 m.

Inspired by ​https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-February/043221.html

Venice is a globally unique (or maybe almost unique) exception anyway, but
what we currently have there is the result of people reclassifying all the
footways as pedestrian roads, even if they are 50 cm wide. I have started
in the past several attempts to open a discussion on this, but it felt like
Don Quixote. See this as an example:
​https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/488627565/history I have surveyed it
myself, like many others, where I began to reclassify the very narrow
footpaths from pedestrian to footway, but I am not local and people destroy
the finer grained distinction of footway and pedestrian as soon as you add
them, I guess they do not want the red dots. It is unfortunate, because it
makes the Venice map much harder to read and less useful. If you are local,
please try to improve the situation, we do not need new tags, it would be
sufficient to apply the existing ones consistently rather than
indiscriminately.

iD equivalent at ​https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5991

URL:https://josm.openstreetmap.de/svn/trunk
Repository:UUID: 0c6e7542-c601-0410-84e7-c038aed88b3b
Last:Changed Date: 2019-02-23 17:46:51 +0100 (Sat, 23 Feb 2019)
Build-Date:2019-02-24 02:30:49
Revision:14802
Relative:URL: ^/trunk

Identification: JOSM/1.5 (14802 en) Linux Ubuntu 16.04.5 LTS
Memory Usage: 418 MB / 869 MB (182 MB allocated, but free)
Java version: 1.8.0_201-b09, Oracle Corporation, Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM
Screen: :0.0 1920x1080
Maximum Screen Size: 1920x1080
Dataset consistency test: No problems found

Plugins:
+ OpeningHoursEditor (34867)
+ buildings_tools (34867)
+ continuosDownload (82)
+ imagery_offset_db (34867)
+ measurement (34867)
+ reverter (34867)
+ todo (30306)

Last errors/warnings:
- W: No configuration settings found.  Using hardcoded default values for all pools.

[anonymous]

from iD discussion - image of something currently tagged highway=pedestrian: ​https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4411347,12.3392042,3a,75y,301.28h,88.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sILSBOGbqsP4gBQ7A2h-YvA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[Klumbumbus]

I think 2m is a reasonable threshold. The question is should it warn for <2 or <=2?
We have 1656 highway=pedestrian ways with width=2 spreed all over the world (only one of them in venice) (wizard query: type:way and highway=pedestrian and width=2 global). I would say <2 as 2m could already be acessible even for two-track vehicles.

[mkoniecz]

Also, 2m may be case of "well, it looks about 2m wide" and in reality be for example 3m wide.

Something estimated to be 1m wide or measured precisely is much more likely to not be significantly wider than tagged.

After all, it is better to catch some blatant mistagging rather than all mistaggings and many false positives (especially with an autofix!).

[Klumbumbus]

In 14831/josm:

• fix #17305 - warn about boundary=administrative together with landuse=residential
• fix #17391 - warn about highway=pedestrian together with width<2

[Klumbumbus]

In 14840/josm:

fix #17423, see #17391 - fix warning about highway=pedestrian together with width<2

[dieterdreist]

I would make the threshold at least 3m. A 2m wide way (and likely even 3m) is still a footway, not a road that would be a normal road if there wasn't a legal restriction.

A road which is 2 meters wide will not offer room for a normal to small car to pass a single pedestrian walking on it, without putting both into an exceptional state (because of the close passing by). Cars may be up to 2,50 wide according to many jurisdictions, typical cars will be something like ~1.65 (Fiat Panda / smart) to ~1.85 (limousine) to 2 m (SUV). A 2 m car will not be able to use a 2 m road (particularly not in urban setting between buildings and walls, typical for pedestrian streets), and even with a Fiat Panda, there are only 0.35 m remaining for the pedestrians (think about a wheelchair, 1m wide, or a baby stroller or obese people).
A typical pedestrian road is more something like 8 meters wide.

For reference on car dimensions: ​https://de.automobiledimension.com/abmessungen-autos-land-rover.html

[mkoniecz]

I initially proposed 2 m to never, ever have false positives. In general, avoiding false positives is for me the highest priority in a well working validator.

I can imagine at least fragments of valid highway=pedestrian of quite narrow width.

Though probably 3 m as edge value will not be problematic.

[dieterdreist]

Yes, I understand a reasonable warning threshold should be on the safe side. I agree <=3m will be safe.
Do not underestimate that people will be also using this to check what is "reasonable". 1.8m gives a warning, but 2 does not? So the limit must be 2 ;-)

[Klumbumbus]

I would say it is not wrong to tag ​this as highway pedestrian. My quick and dirty geometric calculations in paint ;) resulted a width of 3,33m (assuming the girl is 1,55m tall). So it is potentially even <3m at some sections.

So I prefer the warning at <3, not <=3.

[Klumbumbus]

In 14910/josm:

fix #17391 - raise warning threshold about narrow highway=pedestrian to 3