[Context/disclaimer/note: This is a repost of a message I posted in the discussions on this topic on the OSM US Slack. I am Lumikeiju; this is my work account as a staff member at TCAT. My participation in the PWG predates my employment by UW, but I want to respond to this specific point with my work hat on!]

Do note that the OpenSidewalks schema should be though of only as adjacent to, or downstream of, OSM tagging standards - not the other way around!

Meaning, #OpenSidewalks mappers (either TCAT staff or anyone in the OSM community participating in our Organised Editing Activity) should never be mapping in OSM in a way that contradicts OSM’s tagging standards.

Notably, OSW defines things like https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=footway (with no https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:footway) as a specific entity type, and we consume https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway=sidewalks in ways that tagging the connectors with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway=sidewalk complicates. But that’s “our problem” - not OSM’s! - and we’ve developed some internal solutions to filter out the tiny connectors when they’re tagged as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway=sidewalk.

I should also note that we’re in the process of moving away from the old “Mapping OpenSidewalks in OpenStreetMap” guides shared over the years as PDFs or other static documents and replacing them with updated public-facing documentation on the (WIP) TCAT Wiki.

Unfortunately, OSW has referred to the connectors as “links” in the past but https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway=link was already defined differently. We’ll work to make sure this discrepancy is disambiguated in our documentation going forward.

Side note: There is a difference between constructed paths connecting sidewalk centerlines and curbs, such as when sidewalks are separated from roadways by a verge, vs tiny connectors creating a routable bridge between a sidewalk centerline and a curb node when the entirety of the connector is within the area represented by mapping a https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway=sidewalk (+ https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:width) as a centerline way. These situations more clearly match the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway=link guidelines, though for simplicity’s sake I would rather support tagging both of these situations in the same way.

I’m the one who suggested tagging connectors with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=footway + https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway=sidewalk + https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sidewalk=connector as I believe that is the “best of all worlds” as it maintains the current de facto standard (of tagging connectors with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=footway + https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway=sidewalk) while providing the iterative refinement path forward for mappers and data consumers to map and work with these connectors in a way that doesn’t require mass-retagging or updating existing software.

One final note: Correct, PWG Schema recommends only https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sidewalk:<side>=separate|no and intentionally does not use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk.

Amy here, from TCAT @ UW and the OpenSidewalks project:

Thanks for the shout-out, @Glassman!

@Malle_Yeno, let me know if there’s any way I can be of assistance!

The #sidewalks channel in the OSM US Slack is a great place to ask any questions that come up and to get feedback from the community.

Happy mapping!