Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Tobias Zwick]

Hey Roland

The reason I asked about whether there is a tool that finds (possibly
wrong) duplicate mapped cycleways because a very similar algorithm could
be used to determine whether any one street is actually *missing*
cycleway tagging or whether the cycleway is in fact already tagged but
as a separate way.
In other words, I need all those roads that neither have a cycleway=*
tag (easy) nor have a cycleway-way next to them (the hard part). I
wonder, is this possible to achieve with an Overpass query?

I was told here
https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/139#issuecomment-297518195
by an Osmose-backend contributor that they implemented this already, but
of course, Osmose does direct postgis queries, so more is possible with
this.
https://github.com/osm-fr/osmose-backend/blob/master/analysers/analyser_osmosis_cycleway_track.py

I am developing an app with which one should be able to map cycleways
basically by simply answering the question "Is there a cycleway here?"
and of course, the app needs to find out, where it may ask and where it
shouldn't.

Greetings
Tobias

On 28.4.2017 6:36 AM, Roland Olbricht wrote:
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/oEm
> 
> Thank you for the link.
> 
>> Unfortunately it does not (yet)catch also the segregated and
>> not-segregated foot-cycle-paths that are tagged using the JOSM presets
>> (highway=path, foot=designated, bicycle=designated, segregated=yes|no)
> 
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/oG6
> 
> I have essentially just added the conditions you mention in one line. I
> have slightly changed the viewport to have relevant results for the
> change within the viewport.
> 
>> I am not an Overpass-Turbo expert and don't dare to add them to your
>> script
> 
> The linked queries are immutable. If you open the link then you always
> work on an independend copy.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Roland
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Marc Gemis]

This is different view than what is described in the Danish page. I
seen several cases where people treat curbs/kerbs differently from
other barriers.
I have also read in previous discussion that people oppose separate
OSM ways for reasons such complexity and navigation. The complexity
mainly follows from the problem to properly connect the separate ways
with way for the cars at crossings.

I understand both sides and find it hard to decide which is the best
way to tag/map.

I do have a question on route relations for pedestrians and separate
sidewalks, but this seems off topic here (talking about cycleways).

m.

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>>
>> Just curious, do you apply the same arguments to map separate
>> sidewalks and sidewalks separate from cycle ways ? Or are there
>> reasons to treat sidewalk differently ?
>
>
> Yes, if it's separated by a curb or median from the rest of the street.
> Otherwise I'll do sidewalk=left|right|both if it's just painted on.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Roland Olbricht]

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/oEm


Thank you for the link.


Unfortunately it does not (yet)catch also the segregated and
not-segregated foot-cycle-paths that are tagged using the JOSM presets
(highway=path, foot=designated, bicycle=designated, segregated=yes|no)


http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/oG6

I have essentially just added the conditions you mention in one line. I 
have slightly changed the viewport to have relevant results for the 
change within the viewport.


> I am not an Overpass-Turbo expert and don't dare to add them to your
> script

The linked queries are immutable. If you open the link then you always 
work on an independend copy.


Cheers,

Roland


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Marc Gemis  wrote:

> Just curious, do you apply the same arguments to map separate
> sidewalks and sidewalks separate from cycle ways ? Or are there
> reasons to treat sidewalk differently ?
>

Yes, if it's separated by a curb or median from the rest of the street.
Otherwise I'll do sidewalk=left|right|both if it's just painted on.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Marc Gemis]

Just curious, do you apply the same arguments to map separate
sidewalks and sidewalks separate from cycle ways ? Or are there
reasons to treat sidewalk differently ?

m

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> 2017-04-27 9:19 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe :
>>
>> So not all of the cases are an error, but many of them.
>
>
>
> I would like to come to a common agreement and document that
> highway=cycleway on distinct geometry is preferable to having just a
> cycleway=track attribute on a road. In the past some of the separate
> cycleways I had mapped have been deleted in favor of attributes on the road.
> The latter is an inferior representation (IMHO) because:
>
> 1. it makes it harder to add more attributes to the cycleway (including
> maxspeed, surface, turn restrictions, width, access restrictions)
>
> 2. it makes it unclear or at least much more error prone to determine which
> attributes of the road also belong to the cycleway (and vice versa)
>
> 3. it removes the geometric details (position, shape, unclear position of
> things between (or not) the cycleway and the road like grass, guard rails,
> telephone booths, poles, crossings between driveways, etc.)
>
> Therefore I believe we should recommend that fixing duplicates as of this
> thread should be done by removing the attribute cycleway=track, not deleting
> the highway=cycleway.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Michael Andersen]

For years the danish community has generally been following this 
recommendation: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Da:Cykelstivejledning on 
when to use cycleway=track and when to use separate cycleways. I'd like to 
express the opinion that cycleway=track is NOT bad and actually in many 
situations is preferable to separately mapped cycleways.

On torsdag den 27. april 2017 10.14.18 CEST Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2017-04-27 9:19 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe :
> > So not all of the cases are an error, but many of them.
> 
> I would like to come to a common agreement and document that
> highway=cycleway on distinct geometry is preferable to having just a
> cycleway=track attribute on a road. In the past some of the separate
> cycleways I had mapped have been deleted in favor of attributes on the
> road. The latter is an inferior representation (IMHO) because:
> 
> 1. it makes it harder to add more attributes to the cycleway (including
> maxspeed, surface, turn restrictions, width, access restrictions)
> 
> 2. it makes it unclear or at least much more error prone to determine which
> attributes of the road also belong to the cycleway (and vice versa)
> 
> 3. it removes the geometric details (position, shape, unclear position of
> things between (or not) the cycleway and the road like grass, guard rails,
> telephone booths, poles, crossings between driveways, etc.)
> 
> Therefore I believe we should recommend that fixing duplicates as of this
> thread should be done by removing the attribute cycleway=track, not
> deleting the highway=cycleway.
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[nwastra]

+1
> On 27 Apr 2017, at 7:39 PM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> I fully agree on this. Please do not remove separate cycleways, unless they 
> are wrongly mapped cycle lanes (an error which I encounter from time to time)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Volker Schmidt]

>
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/oEm


Nice tool, thanks!

Unfortunately it does not (yet)catch also the segregated and not-segregated
foot-cycle-paths that are tagged using the JOSM presets (highway=path,
foot=designated, bicycle=designated, segregated=yes|no)
I am not an Overpass-Turbo expert and don't dare to add them to your
script.

I would like to come to a common agreement and document that
> highway=cycleway on distinct geometry is preferable to having just a
> cycleway=track attribute on a road. In the past some of the separate
> cycleways I had mapped have been deleted in favor of attributes on the
> road. The latter is an inferior representation (IMHO) because:
>
> 1. it makes it harder to add more attributes to the cycleway (including
> maxspeed, surface, turn restrictions, width, access restrictions)
>
> 2. it makes it unclear or at least much more error prone to determine which
> attributes of the road also belong to the cycleway (and vice versa)
>
> 3. it removes the geometric details (position, shape, unclear position of
> things between (or not) the cycleway and the road like grass, guard rails,
> telephone booths, poles, crossings between driveways, etc.)
>
> Therefore I believe we should recommend that fixing duplicates as of this
> thread should be done by removing the attribute cycleway=track, not
> deleting the highway=cycleway.
>

I fully agree on this. Please do not remove separate cycleways, unless they
are wrongly mapped cycle lanes (an error which I encounter from time to
time)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[joost schouppe]

>
>
> Yes, there are arguments for both ways of mapping, but as long as we don't
> prefer one over the other, mappers will edit back and forth without much
> sense.
>

 I just think it's too complicated an issue to just decide here and now. So
a good and neutral guideline is probably the first thing we need.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-04-27 10:21 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe :

> There are very good arguments for both sides of this discussion.




I forgot another two pro distinct geometry:

4. consistency. There is a general rule that separate carriageways should
be mapped separately. Why would we do it everywhere but on cycleways?

5. ideology. Why would we prefer cars, lorries and motorbikes over
bicycles? We could just as well map the road as an attribute of the
cycleway. road=track on a highway=cycleway. This would make it easier for
renderers to get the distance between the road and the cycleway right and
could help prevent overlapping cycleways and roads.


Yes, there are arguments for both ways of mapping, but as long as we don't
prefer one over the other, mappers will edit back and forth without much
sense.

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[joost schouppe]

There are very good arguments for both sides of this discussion. Is there a
wiki article where both views are really confronted with all the arguments?
(I've seen a long article about why you should use separate ways to make
wheelchair routing possible, but can't find it now. But I don't remember
seeing a neutral article which collects all the points of view).

2017-04-27 10:14 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
> 2017-04-27 9:19 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe :
>
>> So not all of the cases are an error, but many of them.
>
>
>
> I would like to come to a common agreement and document that
> highway=cycleway on distinct geometry is preferable to having just a
> cycleway=track attribute on a road. In the past some of the separate
> cycleways I had mapped have been deleted in favor of attributes on the
> road. The latter is an inferior representation (IMHO) because:
>
> 1. it makes it harder to add more attributes to the cycleway (including
> maxspeed, surface, turn restrictions, width, access restrictions)
>
> 2. it makes it unclear or at least much more error prone to determine
> which attributes of the road also belong to the cycleway (and vice versa)
>
> 3. it removes the geometric details (position, shape, unclear position of
> things between (or not) the cycleway and the road like grass, guard rails,
> telephone booths, poles, crossings between driveways, etc.)
>
> Therefore I believe we should recommend that fixing duplicates as of this
> thread should be done by removing the attribute cycleway=track, not
> deleting the highway=cycleway.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>



-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-04-27 9:19 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe :

> So not all of the cases are an error, but many of them.



I would like to come to a common agreement and document that
highway=cycleway on distinct geometry is preferable to having just a
cycleway=track attribute on a road. In the past some of the separate
cycleways I had mapped have been deleted in favor of attributes on the
road. The latter is an inferior representation (IMHO) because:

1. it makes it harder to add more attributes to the cycleway (including
maxspeed, surface, turn restrictions, width, access restrictions)

2. it makes it unclear or at least much more error prone to determine which
attributes of the road also belong to the cycleway (and vice versa)

3. it removes the geometric details (position, shape, unclear position of
things between (or not) the cycleway and the road like grass, guard rails,
telephone booths, poles, crossings between driveways, etc.)

Therefore I believe we should recommend that fixing duplicates as of this
thread should be done by removing the attribute cycleway=track, not
deleting the highway=cycleway.

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Benoit Fournier]

> On Apr 27, 2017 9:24 AM, "joost schouppe" 
wrote:
> >
> > So not all of the cases are an error, but many of them. So is there any
tool available to answer OP? Or do you have to write your own solution?
> > Since no-one said so yet, I suppose there isn't.

There is, the answer was given elsewhere:

> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "Frédéric Rodrigo"
> Date: Apr 26, 2017 9:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [westnordost/StreetComplete] Quest: cycleway (#139)
>
> Osmose-QA already have it:
>
> http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#item=1180=1%2C2%2C3
> http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/errors/?item=1180
>
https://github.com/osm-fr/osmose-backend/blob/master/analysers/analyser_osmosis_cycleway_track.py
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[joost schouppe]

So not all of the cases are an error, but many of them. So is there any
tool available to answer OP? Or do you have to write your own solution?
Since no-one said so yet, I suppose there isn't. Here's a quick visual
check:

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/oEm

I think I found a nice example of a messed up situation there.

2017-04-27 8:18 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson :

>
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I wonder, does anyone know a QA tool out there that finds duplicate
>> cycleways?
>>
>> With duplicate, I mean cycleways that are both
>> - tagged as cycleway=* on a highway=* way and
>> - mapped as a separate way parallel to the street with highway=cycleway
>>
>
>  What about situations where there's a path next to a street with bike
> lanes?
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>


-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Tobias Zwick  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I wonder, does anyone know a QA tool out there that finds duplicate
> cycleways?
>
> With duplicate, I mean cycleways that are both
> - tagged as cycleway=* on a highway=* way and
> - mapped as a separate way parallel to the street with highway=cycleway
>

 What about situations where there's a path next to a street with bike
lanes?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Marc Gemis]

In some countries you have to place bicycle=use_sidepath on the main
road when you map a separate cycleway.  This is done to indicate that
you are supposed to ride on the cycleway, but may use the main road to
access e.g. houses on the opposite side.
In such a case it make no sense to also keep cycleway=track I think,
as this is imposed by the bicycle=use_sidepath tag.

m.

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Michael Andersen  wrote:
> On onsdag den 26. april 2017 07.22.27 CEST Ture Pålsson wrote:
>> > 25 apr. 2017 kl. 21:52 skrev Martin Koppenhoefer :
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > sent from a phone
>> >
>> > On 25. Apr 2017, at 19:07, Tobias Zwick  > wrote:
>> >> I would say so, as long as there are not in reality two cycleways (see
>> >> above). Wouldn't you?
>> >
>> > it depends on the meaning/reading. I believe cycleway=track is bad anyway,
>> > it's ok for preliminary mapping but fails when it comes to […]
>> On a side note, around where I live I see quite a few cycleways mapped as
>> their own ways, tagged highway=cycleway,cycleway=track. Does the
>> cycleway=track mean anything in this context (and if so: what?) or is it a
>> mapping error?
>
> In that context it's a mistake. Also in my opinion cycleway=track is not bad.
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Michael Andersen]

On onsdag den 26. april 2017 07.22.27 CEST Ture Pålsson wrote:
> > 25 apr. 2017 kl. 21:52 skrev Martin Koppenhoefer :
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > sent from a phone
> > 
> > On 25. Apr 2017, at 19:07, Tobias Zwick > wrote:
> >> I would say so, as long as there are not in reality two cycleways (see
> >> above). Wouldn't you?
> > 
> > it depends on the meaning/reading. I believe cycleway=track is bad anyway,
> > it's ok for preliminary mapping but fails when it comes to […]
> On a side note, around where I live I see quite a few cycleways mapped as
> their own ways, tagged highway=cycleway,cycleway=track. Does the
> cycleway=track mean anything in this context (and if so: what?) or is it a
> mapping error?

In that context it's a mistake. Also in my opinion cycleway=track is not bad.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Ture Pålsson]

> 25 apr. 2017 kl. 21:52 skrev Martin Koppenhoefer :
> 
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> On 25. Apr 2017, at 19:07, Tobias Zwick  > wrote:
> 
>> I would say so, as long as there are not in reality two cycleways (see
>> above). Wouldn't you?
> 
> 
> it depends on the meaning/reading. I believe cycleway=track is bad anyway, 
> it's ok for preliminary mapping but fails when it comes to […]


On a side note, around where I live I see quite a few cycleways mapped as their 
own ways, tagged highway=cycleway,cycleway=track. Does the cycleway=track mean 
anything in this context (and if so: what?) or is it a mapping error?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 25. Apr 2017, at 19:07, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> 
> I would say so, as long as there are not in reality two cycleways (see
> above). Wouldn't you?


it depends on the meaning/reading. I believe cycleway=track is bad anyway, it's 
ok for preliminary mapping but fails when it comes to the details. A distinct 
carriageway should sooner or later get its own way, IMHO, so this is not 
something I personally would do anyway (because I'm fine with relying on 
geometry and won't add explicit cycleway=track tags with my own interpretation 
of which cycleways are associated with which streets).

Cycleway=* is a property, it says a highway has cycle infrastructure attached 
(a lane or a nearby track). highway=cycleway is a distinct cycleway. There's no 
contradiction or duplication if you do both: say with a tag that a road has a 
cycleway nearby and add this cycleway explicitly as distinct geometry. This is 
similar to adding the bridge=yes property to ways on bridges AND map the (same) 
bridge as man_made=bridge, perfectly fine (for bridges at least).

On the other hand the wiki says since 2013 that you shouldn't add the 
cycleway=track tag to roads where the cycleway is already explicitly mapped:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway
so it might be seen as an error. It all boils down to common interpretation of 
tags (and with the wiki continuously changing and more and more people starting 
to map, what you think today is established meaning might change tomorrow, very 
unfortunately as I would like to add).


cheers,
Martin ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Tobias Zwick]

> https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6757218,-117.3849352,3a,75y,70.4h,83.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqdzvokjXjkutvCYJLOWh_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e4
> 
> That's a bicycle lane on the road, plus a distinct bicycle path running
> parallel to it.  It's mapped in OSM as a "cycleway=lane" on the road and a 
> "highway=cycleway" running parallel to it.

Okay, I mean of course duplicate cycleways where the duplicate mapping
is an error. Correct usages like you present can be filtered out by
looking a the value of the cycleway tag: If there is a separate way and
the cycleway-tag on the road is a track, then it is probably an error.

> do you suppose this is an error?

I would say so, as long as there are not in reality two cycleways (see
above). Wouldn't you?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 19:49:56 +0200
Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 24. Apr 2017, at 19:27, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> > 
> > With duplicate, I mean cycleways that are both
> > - tagged as cycleway=* on a highway=* way and
> > - mapped as a separate way parallel to the street with
> > highway=cycleway  
> 
> 
> do you suppose this is an error?
> 
> I don't know about such a tool, but you could make a postgis query:
> define a buffer around the highways with cycleway properties and look
> for cycleway ways in these areas. You won't be able to tell with 100%
> probability whether these are referring to the same cycleways though.

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6757218,-117.3849352,3a,75y,70.4h,83.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqdzvokjXjkutvCYJLOWh_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e4

That's a bicycle lane on the road, plus a distinct bicycle path running
parallel to it.  It's mapped in OSM as a "cycleway=lane" on the road and a 
"highway=cycleway" running parallel to it.

-- 
Mark

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 24. Apr 2017, at 19:27, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> 
> With duplicate, I mean cycleways that are both
> - tagged as cycleway=* on a highway=* way and
> - mapped as a separate way parallel to the street with highway=cycleway


do you suppose this is an error?

I don't know about such a tool, but you could make a postgis query: define a 
buffer around the highways with cycleway properties and look for cycleway ways 
in these areas. You won't be able to tell with 100% probability whether these 
are referring to the same cycleways though.

Cheers,
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk