[Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Err no. highway=cycleway indicates that the used way is mainly or exclusively for bicycles; the route is designated for bicycles (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway) After much thought, I think I've finally decided that the definition I would like for cycleway would be something like the way is especially well suited to use by bicycles. Forget what it was designed for, forget who it's used by, all that matters is whether it is an efficient means for a bike to get a reasonable distance and cannot be used by cars. So, a footpath is not a cycleway, because it's not especially well suited - it's only as well suited as your average footpath, by definition. Things that make a cycleway well suited: - good surface: smooth asphalt is better than compacted gravel - smoothness: few bumps such as tree roots or kerbs - gentle curves: few sharp turns - signs or legislation giving priority to bicycles - navigability: signs allowing a cyclist to follow the route for many kilometres A cycleway doesn't have to have all the above, but it should have most. We can perhaps argue about the minimum standard. I would also like to propose some rules/guidelines for routers and renderers, something like: - the rendering difference between highway=footpath bicycle=yes and highway=cycleway should be kept small, as the distinction is small - routers should give strong preference to highway=cycleway over alternative roads, and some smaller preference over highway=footway. Corollaries of the above: - Naming is almost irrelevant. Foo bike path is slightly more of a cycleway than Foo trail but not much. - Lack of bicycle signs or paint is not important, but counts for something. - There could be some debate about the designation of an individual route, but that's inevitable, and doesn't seem important. Obviously I'm primarily thinking of the Australian context, but perhaps some of the above would apply in other countries too? Thoughts? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Err no. highway=cycleway indicates that the used way is mainly or exclusively for bicycles; the route is designated for bicycles (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway) After much thought, I think I've finally decided that the definition I would like for cycleway would be something like the way is especially well suited to use by bicycles. Forget what it was designed for, forget who it's used by, all that matters is whether it is an efficient means for a bike to get a reasonable distance and cannot be used by cars. So, a footpath is not a cycleway, because it's not especially well suited - it's only as well suited as your average footpath, by definition. Things that make a cycleway well suited: - good surface: smooth asphalt is better than compacted gravel - smoothness: few bumps such as tree roots or kerbs - gentle curves: few sharp turns - signs or legislation giving priority to bicycles - navigability: signs allowing a cyclist to follow the route for many kilometres A cycleway doesn't have to have all the above, but it should have most. We can perhaps argue about the minimum standard. I would also like to propose some rules/guidelines for routers and renderers, something like: - the rendering difference between highway=footpath bicycle=yes and highway=cycleway should be kept small, as the distinction is small - routers should give strong preference to highway=cycleway over alternative roads, and some smaller preference over highway=footway. Corollaries of the above: - Naming is almost irrelevant. Foo bike path is slightly more of a cycleway than Foo trail but not much. - Lack of bicycle signs or paint is not important, but counts for something. - There could be some debate about the designation of an individual route, but that's inevitable, and doesn't seem important. Obviously I'm primarily thinking of the Australian context, but perhaps some of the above would apply in other countries too? The point of a map is to convey something to the user, and so the question is what most people want to know, and how to encode that with a relatively small number of terms. So, I think your definition is something that boils down to would someone call this a bike path or a walkway, but that having a list of properties is helpful. pgp6OMaz1BnP0.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
Hi! Am 04.01.2010 13:42, schrieb Steve Bennett: Things that make a cycleway well suited: - good surface: smooth asphalt is better than compacted gravel - smoothness: few bumps such as tree roots or kerbs - gentle curves: few sharp turns - signs or legislation giving priority to bicycles - navigability: signs allowing a cyclist to follow the route for many kilometres A cycleway doesn't have to have all the above, but it should have most. We can perhaps argue about the minimum standard. I think this is not an improvment, as it gives a list of highly subjective parameters, that different mappers will judge differently and that also fit to ways that are definitely no cycleways. According to these hints, cyclists will tag even more minor roads, pedestrian ways and agricultural tracks as cycleways because the feel that they are suitable for cycling. And I feel that this is plainly wrong. bye Nop ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
Steve Bennett wrote: After much thought, I think I've finally decided that the definition I would like for cycleway would be something like the way is especially well suited to use by bicycles. This definition applies to many ways that also fulfil definitions for other highway values (e.g. bridleways, tracks, service roads, ... which can all be well suited to use by bicycles). Therefore, your definition could work as a separate tag, but not as a highway value - we only want one of these per way. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com writes: After much thought, I think I've finally decided that the definition I would like for cycleway would be something like the way is especially well suited to use by bicycles. The point of a map is to convey something to the user, and so the question is what most people want to know, and how to encode that with a relatively small number of terms. So, I think your definition is something that boils down to would someone call this a bike path or a walkway, but that having a list of properties is helpful. Let me say back to you what you just said: A cycleway is a cycleway if someone would call this a bike path. IMHO that's not helpful. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Alex Mauer wrote: Your criteria for a “well-suited” cycle way are inapplicable to many cycleways. One big example is mountain bike trails, which fail nearly all of them: good surface, smoothness, gentle curves, signs giving priority to bicycles, and possibly navigability. Yet they are cycleways nonetheless. I realize that you said that a cycleway wouldn’t need to meet all of the criteria, but this is a pretty bad mismatch. I don't see a mountain bike track as equivalent to a cycleway. I would specifically exclude a MTB track from cycleway ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
2010/1/4 Liz ed...@billiau.net I don't see a mountain bike track as equivalent to a cycleway. I would specifically exclude a MTB track from cycleway +1, still I agree with most of the comments above that the proposed change of the definition would not improve the situation. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: If it's a short path between two buildings or something, I wouldn't call that especially suitable for cycling. Others might. There is a lot of fuzzy area here. This is a problem. It's called unverifiability. And to reiterate, I haven't specified what the minimum standard would be exactly. Please do. I expect you may find it difficult, but I'm hoping to be surprised :) ... It is not important that a single piece of tarmac be mapped the same way in every country. This mindset leads to the situation we currently have - people using the same tag for multiple overlapping purposes. If you want fragmentation of the OSM database according to country, then this is not something I agree with. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Let me say back to you what you just said: A cycleway is a cycleway if someone would call this a bike path. IMHO that's not helpful. Well, I*M*HO, it's close to perfect. If you (well, a reasonable person with some common sense when it comes to bike paths - not something Roy would admit to :)) looked through a map, and every time you saw something mapped as a bike path, it corresponded to something you thought of as a bike path - that would be perfect. The primary purpose of OSM is to create useful maps, not to provide some kind of look-up service for the real world. Can someone tell me how wide that gravel track is down near that shed? Oh, 1.2m, thanks OSM! - no, it's more like How do I get to Jim's house - oh OSM says there's a bike path, I'll try that. But I fear we're about to go down some very old, tired ground here, so Roy, may I suggest you tread carefully :) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: The primary purpose of OSM is to create useful maps, not to provide some kind of look-up service for the real world. Isn't that what a map is? Some kind of look-up service for the real world? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: If ... every time you saw something mapped as a bike path, it corresponded to something you thought of as a bike path - that would be perfect. Key words: something YOU thought of as a bike path. If everyone thinks of a bike path in exactly the same way as everyone else, that's great. If so, it should be easy for you to write down a specific, verifiable definition that everyone will immediately agree with. I still haven't seen one. But I fear we're about to go down some very old, tired ground here, so Roy, may I suggest you tread carefully :) Yeah. I wouldn't bother, but you seem really enthusiastic to find a solution, as am I. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.comwrote: The primary purpose of OSM is to create useful maps, not to provide some kind of look-up service for the real world. Isn't that what a map is? Some kind of look-up service for the real world? There is a layer of interpretation in the middle, that's the crucial difference. The interpretation that distinguishes between two very similar chunks of asphalt, decides one is a road, and one is a driveway and doesn't need mapping. The interpretation that distinguishes between a bunch of extremely similar patches of grass, and maps them as parks, nature reserves, brownfields, greenfields, back gardens, median strips, sports pitches, recreation grounds, and so forth. Some people on these lists think that we should just store random facts at a very fine-grained level, and that some future renderers and routers will magically be able to make sense of the mess. I believe that the people best equipped to make sense of the facts are those entering them into the database, reducing the burden on present and future software developers. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
