
Roads with sidewalk info. (%)
Figure 2. Comparing the coverage of sidewalk data in OSM for 54 cities in the US. Left: percentage of roads with sidewalk information.
Right: ratio between sidewalks and roads. The majority of cities have less than 20% of roads with sidewalk information. In addition, only
Seattle and Detroit have a sidewalk to road ratio above 0.4.
tion of sidewalks to make informed decisions [16]. Ongo-
ing projects [4,17–22] propose to standardize and improve
sidewalk data coverage. Even so, researchers primarily rely
on crowdsourced OpenStreetMap (OSM) data, the largest
geospatial open-data initiative, with data covering not only
streets and roads, but also buildings, points of interest, and
other geographic entities [23].
Considering OSM’s importance in sidewalk studies, our
primary goal is to assess the coverage and trustworthiness
of OSM sidewalk data. While previous studies [24,25] have
assessed completeness of sidewalks, we propose to also as-
sess the trustworthiness of the data by analyzing its history
and provenance. Concretely, we compare the sidewalk cov-
erage of OSM in 54 major cities in the United States and
further expand our analysis in three major cities (Seattle,
Chicago and New York City) with the spatial trustworthi-
ness of the data. We then highlight possible research direc-
tions to mitigate some of the identified problems.
2. Related Work
OSM data has been used in various studies spanning
different fields, including routing [26,27], location-based
services [28–30], traffic and transportation [31–34], energy
modeling [35,36], population estimation [37,38], 3D city
modeling [39–41], land cover use [42,43], and emergency
response management [44,45]. Ongoing initiatives to im-
prove sidewalk data, including Accessmap [18] and Open-
Sidewalks [17], also utilize data from OSM. However, qual-
ity of OSM data has always been a major concern for both
research and industrial purposes [46–54]. To tackle this
problem, studies have been conducted to evaluate the qual-
ity and completeness of OSM data, focusing on different en-
tities, such as roads [55–57], buildings [49,50], and points
of interest [58]. Properly assessing the quality of OSM
data is a challenge, given that traditional approaches rely
on the availability of official data (though even such data
might have problems, including slow update rate). Alterna-
tive approaches then analyze the evolution of the data itself,
assessing how the number of users editing, confirmations
from different users, number of versions and rollbacks con-
tribute to the quality of OSM data [59–66]. Considering
this, we propose to evaluate the use of trustworthiness as an
index for OSM sidewalk data.
3. Study Area and OpenStreetMap Data
Between 2001 and 2019, the US built-up land - build-
ings, roads, and other infrastructures - increased by more
than 14,000 square miles of new developments [67]. Today,
more than 80% of the US population (around 309 million
people) lives in urban areas [68]. Subsequently, there has
been a growth in the availability of OSM data across the
US, capturing its complex and diverse built environment.
Our study first analyzes the availability of OSM sidewalk
Roads with sidewalk info. (%)
Growth of roads with sidewalk info. over the years
Growth of sidewalk geometries over the years
Figure 3. Growth of OSM sidewalk data in Chicago, Seattle, and
NYC over the years. Top: growth of roads with sidewalk informa-
tion. Bottom: growth of sidewalk / road ratio.
2