Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
Not far from here, there is a network of designated bicycle/multiuse trails. There are corresponding signs. These trails happen to be MTB trails. Not all bicycles are road bicycles, sorry for starting the obvious. On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.comwrote: In bare bones basic, Steve, are you for or against using highway = cycleway for officially marked cycleways only? That's what I would like to understand :) I'm for two things: 1) Offially marked cycleways being marked with highway=cycleway 2) A way to mark unofficial cycleways that are of similar or better standard, distinct from highway=footway. It's quite simple really. According to the wiki definition mainly or exclusively for cyclists there are zero cycleways in the UK, since there is no provision in UK law for any such thing (pedestrians have priority over cyclists on all paths). So the 22,000 highway=cycleway in the UK all need to be changed. Unfortunately, UK mappers don't seem to agree with this. I think the objectively-correct solution is to have a less-specific definition for highway=cycleway, since that will allow more distinctions to be made with fewer tags on a whole-world basis. But sometimes you just have to find workarounds for yesterday's mistakes. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
2010/1/8 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com So the 22,000 highway=cycleway in the UK all need to be changed. Unfortunately, UK mappers don't seem to agree with this. well, I'm pretty sure if you'd start today you would have changed them within some weeks, but still mainly designed could be interpreted for some of those 22,000 cycleways as well, couldn't it? On the other hand Germany alone has 4 times the cycleways in OSM and does require distinction between formal cycleways and other ways where cycles might be allowed as well but are not considered cycleways. Haven't looked up the numbers for France, Italy, the Netherlands and so on, but I agree with you: the best will be to find a workaround for yesterdays mistakes. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
2010/1/8 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2010/1/8 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com So the 22,000 highway=cycleway in the UK all need to be changed. Unfortunately, UK mappers don't seem to agree with this. If you are sure that there is zero official cycleways, where is the problem to change all this tagging to special one mentioned by Steve? Automate it and be done, no? well, I'm pretty sure if you'd start today you would have changed them within some weeks, but still mainly designed could be interpreted for some of those 22,000 cycleways as well, couldn't it? On the other hand Germany alone has 4 times the cycleways in OSM and does require distinction between formal cycleways and other ways where cycles might be allowed as well but are not considered cycleways. Haven't looked up the numbers for France, Italy, the Netherlands and so on, but I agree with you: the best will be to find a workaround for yesterdays mistakes. Workarounds might work for temporary, but for future it will be easier to agree to clear and cut part of this feature, and deal with semi-official and seems like with different tags. Yes, it will require going trough and reviewing stuff. But it must be done if you want nice definitive map at some level. Just my imho Cheers, Peter. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
2010/1/7 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: Tag highway = cycleway for official cycleways and bicycle=yes if it's allowed to have bicycles on footpaths somewhere. End of story. Yes, in Heh, that makes about three people with very simple takes on the matter - and they're all contradictory. The matter is simple to lots of people - with different understandings each time. In bare bones basic, Steve, are you for or against using highway = cycleway for officially marked cycleways only? That's what I would like to understand :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, Steve Bennett wrote: The asymmetry arises from the requirements of the modes of transport: anything that a bike can ride on, a pedestrian can walk on - but not vice versa. except for the poor germans, who must not walk on a cycleway ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: except for the poor germans, who must not walk on a cycleway and the poor Austrians, Swiss, Turkish and the poor Belarus, Belgians, Brazilians, French, Dutch if it is not also designated for pedestrians or an alternative for pedestrians exists. Please stop considering OSM as a UK, Germany and more recently US and Australia centric project even if the activity of this list might give this impression. Look this (old) wiki page about this (old) topic: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Steve Bennett Is it old as in, obsolete? Should we make an Australian entry, or is it no longer relevant? It is an old page because designation and default access is an old topic and there is no black and white answer. In some countries, when you tag a cycleway, it is obviously not allowed for pedestrians and contributors do not want to be forced to add a foot=no because in some other countries it is obviously allowed. It's like asking the whole world to add a bicycle=no with highway=motorway because it is allowed in some US motorways. It would be very helpful to see an Australian entry in this page, of course. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
2010/1/6 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: It is an old page because designation and default access is an old topic and there is no black and white answer. In some countries, when you tag a cycleway, it is obviously not allowed for pedestrians and contributors do not want to be forced to add a foot=no because in some other countries it is obviously allowed. It's like asking the whole world to add a bicycle=no with highway=motorway because it is allowed in some US motorways. But isn't the point of the table to allow an Australian to tag highway=cycleway and to mean something different from when a German does it? And the point is that the makers of renderers and routers can use this table? Presumably we should provide it in XML format or something to make this easier. Or is this the dream, but it's actually not used? What am I missing? It would be very helpful to see an Australian entry in this page, of course. Jesus, what this dead horse has done to you? Tag highway = cycleway for official cycleways and bicycle=yes if it's allowed to have bicycles on footpaths somewhere. End of story. Yes, in real life lot of people will use footpaths for cycling, and some footpaths would be suitible for cycling, but will lack official marking. Well, bad luck. We can't have everything as in real life on OSM. We have to draw a line somewhere. In fact, if I see a footpath who looks really supictious as usable for cycling too, I will note this with note=* tag and maybe later I will check it out for sure. If not, someone else propably will do. Cheers, Peter. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
Hi! Am 06.01.2010 07:15, schrieb Steve Bennett: On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net The asymmetry arises from the requirements of the modes of transport: anything that a bike can ride on, a pedestrian can walk on - but not vice versa. Anyway, with the realisation that cycleway is actually treated the same as highway=path,bicycle=designated (I thought this was just a proposal, I didn't realise it actually worked), everything gets simpler. No it does not. This equality was originally intended in the path proposal, but there is also a large fraction of mappers who use it differently. Their argumentation is like this: - designated means there is a sign - in my country, when there is a sign, the way is exclusive for cycles - cycleway means pedestrains are allowed, but if there is a sign, they are not, so it cannot be the same bye Nop ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On 01/06/2010 07:10 AM, Nop wrote: No it does not. This equality was originally intended in the path proposal, but there is also a large fraction of mappers who use it differently. Their argumentation is like this: - designated means there is a sign - in my country, when there is a sign, the way is exclusive for cycles - cycleway means pedestrains are allowed, but if there is a sign, they are not, so it cannot be the same So they should use access=no in addition to bicycle=designated. Seems simple enough to me. This is also why access=official was created, even though it’s redundant. -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: The biggest problem I can see at the moment is I really don't want to tag anything bicycle=designated unless I'm certain it really *is* designated that way (which I can't do from aerial photography), but I *do* want to tag it highway=cycleway without such certainty. Or maybe I just tag it fixme=verify designation. I came across this problem too. Eventually I decided to just use highway=path, as that is all that can be confidently concluded from aerial photography. (leave the details for a later ground survey...) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: Tag highway = cycleway for official cycleways and bicycle=yes if it's allowed to have bicycles on footpaths somewhere. End of story. Yes, in Heh, that makes about three people with very simple takes on the matter - and they're all contradictory. The matter is simple to lots of people - with different understandings each time. Ultimately, it comes down to this: there is a clear difference between a dirt path that bikes are allowed on, and a smooth, wide, obstacle free path of compacted limestone that happens not to be signed with any bike signs. That difference is worth encoding, and that's why highway=footway bicycle=yes is not satisfactory to me at the moment, and why I'll continue to (ab)use highway=cycleway. My apologies for the dead horse though, I'm happy to drop this at the moment, for want of anything more useful to add to the conversation. Roy: I came across this problem too. Eventually I decided to just use highway=path, as that is all that can be confidently concluded from aerial photography. (leave the details for a later ground survey...) I do that when it's unpaved, and I really have no idea if bikes are even allowed or not. One I did today: http://osm.org/go/uGtPRKFLD- Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
Hi! Am 05.01.2010 03:51, schrieb Steve Bennett: The important bit is to point out useful information to cyclists - and labelling every single pedestrian path as a cycleway would clearly be wrong. This is exactly why I think it is a bad thing. It is too strongly biased towards a cyclists perspective and would claim anything that is suitable for cycling as a cycleway. I am not a cyclist. I drive cars, I like to hike and I ride horses. Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to avoid. Therefore I disapprove of biased tagging. The current definition is already too fuzzy and has resulted in chaos. An even more biased approach is a change for the worse. The tags in the database should be as neutral as possible so you can derive all sorts of maps from them. The bias towards some preferred interpretation like cycling should be introduced in the map style, not in the data. So if you want to directly point out useful information for cyclists, you should introduce a new tag for cyclists, but leave the highway tags alone. bye Nop ___ 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 7:40 PM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to avoid. highway=cycleway if and only if it has an official sign...? :P ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
Roy Wallace wrote: On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to avoid. highway=cycleway if and only if it has an official sign...? :P Or indicated on an other way (e.g. with a different color of pavement) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
Hi! Am 05.01.2010 11:00, schrieb Roy Wallace: On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nopekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to avoid. highway=cycleway if and only if it has an official sign...? :P There's a considerable fraction of mappers who are convinced of that and use it this way, yes. As I said, current conditions are chaotic. There is still no agreed upon way to mark an official cycleway. And even more fuzzy definitions make things worse, not better. bye Nop ___ 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 9:40 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to avoid. I know German cyclists are fast, but treating cycleways like motorways is ridiculous :) But seriously, you have a point - usability by bikes should be on a separate tag (bicycle:practical, perhaps). And usability by pedestrians should be on a separate tag too. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
2010/1/5 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de: Hi! Am 05.01.2010 11:45, schrieb Richard Mann: On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de mailto:ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to avoid. I know German cyclists are fast, but treating cycleways like motorways is ridiculous :) Ridiculous? You mean just as ridiculous as speed limits, one-ways or traffic lights? :-) It is prohibited by law and you can get fined for it. Legal or not we still need to sort out the difference between path/footpath/cycleway/bridleway I can't say its clear. The whole highway tag is a mess, even the lines between the road types cause too many arguments than is really good. I would suggest that cycles need a separate tag ie cycle=yes and highways where the tag is missing should have reasonable defaults. I would also do the same for pedestrians. That way the highway tag becomes a tag that is based on Judgement even if that Judgement has a set of rules so we are consistent. If you think a cycle way is a cycle way then tag it as one, but also support your decision with other tags. If you don't and someone wants to argue with your judgement then fine. I'm sure the list is more than happy to arbitrate should it turn into a tagging war. But at the end of the day its a Judgement call what ever the rules for the judgement are based on. Peter. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
2010/1/5 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com Right, I'm not confusing the terms. Some people have used the word designed in definitions, as in designed for bicycles. That's all. btw: is there a difference between dedicated and designated? Legally. Although general practice (I believe) is that if a cycleway is really wide enough for vehicles, and is used by *some* vehicles (ie, maintenance ones) then it should be tagged track rather than cycleway. in here streets for maintenance are considered highway=service. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
Hi! Am 05.01.2010 12:45, schrieb Richard Mann: On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de It is prohibited by law and you can get fined for it. It's ridiculous because pedestrians can cross a cycleway on the level (try that on a motorway), and 99.999% of the time pedestrians can walk alongside the cycleway on a paved footway (a facility that isn't generally provided next to a motorway). They are very different. :| The motorway example was of your making and yes, it is bad. :-) My point is: There is an important difference between - a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others) - some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling About like the difference between - a road marked as one-way (prohibited by law in one direction) - a road that looks like it is too narrow for two cars to pass each other I am looking for a way to tag the difference clearly. I do not like schemes that obfuscate it even more. bye Nop ___ 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 12:29 PM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: My point is: There is an important difference between - a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others) - some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling About like the difference between - a road marked as one-way (prohibited by law in one direction) - a road that looks like it is too narrow for two cars to pass each other Oneway is a separate tag, not a separate highway value. This whole argument stems from a fight over what a particular highway value should mean. There'll never be consensus, so lets find other tags to make the distinctions we want, and discourage people from reading too much into highway=cycleway (I wouldn't go so far as to deprecate it, just insist that people add tags if they want to convey a more precise meaning). Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On 01/05/2010 06:29 AM, Nop wrote: The motorway example was of your making and yes, it is bad. :-) My point is: There is an important difference between - a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others) - some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling But is it a physical difference, a legal difference, or something else? IMO: If it’s a physical difference it should be a different highway tag. If it’s a legal/signage difference, it probably belongs in the access=* series of tags. Otherwise, it should probably be a totally separate tag. Note that in some (possibly most) jurisdictions, a “real, official cycleway” is not prohibited by law for others. I would suggest that the difference between tagging for your two examples is most likely legal, and therefore: highway=path+access=no+bicycle=designated for the former and highway=path+bicycle=yes for the latter. -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
Roy Wallace wrote: On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to avoid. highway=cycleway if and only if it has an official sign...? :P No. There seems to be some confusion in the Portland area about this. I'd tag it as a cycleway unless it's too narrow for two oncoming cyclists to pass safely without slowing down or it's specifically marked as a pedestrian area. ___ 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 11:30 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: ... lets find other tags to make the distinctions we want, and discourage people from reading too much into highway=cycleway (I wouldn't go so far as to deprecate it, just insist that people add tags if they want to convey a more precise meaning). +1. I've made several detailed suggestions in the past, but the usual response is but that's too much typing!. What can do... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: My point is: There is an important difference between - a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others) - some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling ... I would suggest that the difference between tagging for your two examples is most likely legal, and therefore: highway=path+access=no+bicycle=designated for the former and highway=path+bicycle=yes for the latter. Close - but bicycle=yes just means bicycles are legal (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access). For suitability (whatever that means), I'd suggest bicycle=yes + bicycle:suitable=yes. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On 01/05/2010 03:05 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Alex Mauer hawke-jojdulvogomqvbxzion...@public.gmane.org wrote: My point is: There is an important difference between - a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others) - some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling ... I would suggest that the difference between tagging for your two examples is most likely legal, and therefore: highway=path+access=no+bicycle=designated for the former and highway=path+bicycle=yes for the latter. Close - but bicycle=yes just means bicycles are legal (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access). For suitability (whatever that means), I'd suggest bicycle=yes + bicycle:suitable=yes. In point of fact I would do neither, because I don’t see the need to point out particularly suitable biking routes that aren’t officially designated bike routes. Any way of doing so would be far too subjective for my tastes. But if I really felt a strong need to apply a tag for some reason, it would be bicycle=yes. -Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: Close - but bicycle=yes just means bicycles are legal (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access). For suitability (whatever that means), I'd suggest bicycle=yes + bicycle:suitable=yes. In point of fact I would do neither, because I don’t see the need to point out particularly suitable biking routes that aren’t officially designated bike routes. Any way of doing so would be far too subjective for my tastes. But if I really felt a strong need to apply a tag for some reason, it would be bicycle=yes. Yes, I agree with all of that - but remember that bicycle=yes refers to legality only. My point is that if there are some who feel the need to tag suitability, this should be done with a new tag, such as *:suitable=* (as no current tags are documented as referring to suitability - and with good reason). ___ 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 5:34 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: highway=path+access=no+bicycle=designated for the former and highway=path+bicycle=yes for the latter. Each to their own, but I'd prefer: highway=cycleway+designation=official_cycleway (or whatever) (for those officially signposted) and highway=cycleway (for those that are not officially signposted but are otherwise just as good) You don't really need the access=no (or foot=no) for the former; it's distinctly rare that there's no route for pedestrians alongside. Using bicycle=designated does not give the precision required (sorry Alex, I know it's your pet scheme, but I don't think it works). Ekkehart - other than the obvious pain of adding another tag to the legions of official cycleways in Germany, is there any real problem with this approach? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote: within the US, i am increasingly seeing things that might once have just been called bike paths that are now designated as multi use trails, e.g. the Mohawk Hudson Bike Path here in Albany has become the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail. Likewise, the Pinellas Trail in the St. Pete Florida area is officially described as a multi-use trail for the cases where it using old railway roadbeds. Yeah, same here. You barely see the term bike path at all. From the OSM point of view, I just see it as a hierarchy: footway: pedestrians cycleway: bicycles and pedestrians There are some countries with large numbers of genuine dedicated non-foot cycleways, though. highway=path+bicycle=designated+foot=designated rather accurately describes the intended official usage pattern of this class of path. i much prefer it to anything cobbed together around highway=cycleway, which is inherently asymmetric where the official policy for the trail is quite symmetric. The asymmetry arises from the requirements of the modes of transport: anything that a bike can ride on, a pedestrian can walk on - but not vice versa. Anyway, with the realisation that cycleway is actually treated the same as highway=path,bicycle=designated (I thought this was just a proposal, I didn't realise it actually worked), everything gets simpler. I'm not even sure what we're fighting over anymore exactly...perhaps someone can remind me. The biggest problem I can see at the moment is I really don't want to tag anything bicycle=designated unless I'm certain it really *is* designated that way (which I can't do from aerial photography), but I *do* want to tag it highway=cycleway without such certainty. Or maybe I just tag it fixme=verify designation. Steve ___ 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 (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
