Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Mike Harris wrote: Be careful with dogging - it has a quite different meaning in British English (;) - on the other hand, I think you did mention it was in Oregon, so maybe ... I wasn't entirely unaware of the connotation... it does successfully screw over cycle traffic, especially if they don't see the leash coming... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Ed I'm not surprised you're confused - there is indeed a great deal of confusion! So everyone is likely to give you a different answer. As someone who has lived for a good number of years both in the USA and in Europe (both England and Germany) I can relate to your problems with cycling in the USA! In my experience - such as it is - practice in OSM (with regard to non-motorised highways) tends to start out with what makes very good sense in Germany and then gets modified to take account of what makes sense in the UK before being further modified by inputs from the USA and elsewhere. The UK system is almost unique inasmuch as there is a very clearly laid down legal set of definitions for public rights of way - but unfortunately the legal situation does not always correspond to what is 'common sense' in terms of customary usage or what you see 'on the ground'. I tend to think that the tag highway=cycleway is used in three broadly different situations: (a) where there is a dedicated lane alongside a vehicular highway - separated from it or not - that is designed either exclusively (usually) for cyclists or occasionally jointly with pedestrians; (b) where there is a dedicated way - usually paved and in an urban area - that is designated by signage as being for cyclists only or for cyclists and pedestrians - the way may also be split by a painted road marking into two parallel lanes (separated only by the marking) - one each for cyclists (only) and the other for pedestrians (only); (c) where there is a way - usually paved and usually in rural areas - that has been created primarily with cyclists in mind (but which - in the UK at least to the best of my knowledge - is also available for use by pedestrians. Given that situation the potential for confusion is obviously high and the tagging tends a bit to depend on whether it was done by someone who is mostly a cyclist or someone who is mostly a walker. If you scan this list you will find a lot of discussion as to the pros and cons of various approaches - the wiki also gives somewhat varying clues according to the latest edit! At present - although I have modified my own approach several times in the light of comments from others on this list - I tend to use highway=cycleway ONLY for the three cases listed above. Other people might use it more widely. I tend to modify tagging with things like foot/bicycle=no/permissive/yes where some clarification would seem helpful. In the UK I also use designation= to reflect legal status without regard to the physical condition on the ground (which can either be reflected in the main highway= tag or by adding tags such as surface= or tracktype= ). I don't think any of this is going to be resolved completely in the near future so I am sure most people would say 'feel free to use your own best judgement'! Mike Harris _ From: Hillsman, Edward [mailto:hills...@cutr.usf.edu] Sent: 30 April 2009 19:40 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes I'm one of the people mapping paths (since March) who scans this list, and I have to say that I'm confused. Although part of that may be because I'm new to OSM and not just to the matter of how to deal with tagging and rendering things. And part of that may because a lot of the tagging conventions developed in Europe, where the cycling infrastructure is often much better than in most of the United States. I got into OSM because I think it and its associated community of spin-off applications provide the best opportunity for most communities in the US to enable citizens to generate routes so that they can plan trips by bicycle. The cycling infrastructure in most parts of the US is discontinuous, poorly mapped by public agencies, and consists of a mix of types: shoulders along roads designated as bike lanes (no curb to the outside); similar but undesignated shoulders that cyclists discover but are not official; lanes marked within streets, often adjacent to outside curbs, but sometimes between lanes of motor-vehicle traffic; sidewalks (footways) parallel to major streets, which were built with the intent of being used by cyclists; traditional sidewalks that were not but which may be used by cyclists except where prohibited; dedicated paths/trails built separate from the road right-of-way, which may be used for utilitarian travel but which often are located where they are used primarily for recreation rather than real trips (most of which are designated multi-use and are used by cyclists and pedestrians); and the majority of roads, which cyclists are legally entitled to use, but which are not specially marked, and which may or may not be unsafe to ride. It is common to have cycling infrastructure on one side of a street but not the other; some types may be safe for two-way cycling, but others, such as shoulders and most in-street lanes, definitely are not. Where the street is divided by a median
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Hillsman, Edward hills...@cutr.usf.edu wrote: I assume that highway=cycleway is a path developed outside a road right-of-way, primarily for cycling (and the topic that you have been discussing in this thread). The illustration on the Map Features page lacks enough surrounding context to indicate whether the tag might be suitable for other kinds of cycling infrastructure. If I am correct, then what would be the difference between this and cycleway=track? cycleway=track is a property of another road (e.g. highway=primary) to show that there is an adjacent path for cycling. If you were to add the required nodes and a second way, that second way would be highway=cycleway. So cycleway=track is a shorthand that people use when they don't want to put in two ways. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway actually explains it quite well. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Be careful with dogging - it has a quite different meaning in British English (;) - on the other hand, I think you did mention it was in Oregon, so maybe ... Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] Sent: 30 April 2009 22:48 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes Richard Mann wrote: It comes down to what you think is meant by highway=cycleway. If you think that it means a cycle superhighway, then obviously you don't want to apply that to a shared-with-pedestrians route. Depends on jurisdiction, of course. One problem OSM has with handling Oregon and Washington State properly is people are bad about tagging foot=yes and bicycle=yes to highway types that default to no for those vehicle classes (since /all/ ways, including motorways, are open to bicycles and pedestrians unless otherwise posted, in Oregon and Washington State, and the only ways that commonly disallow pedestrians and bicycles are narrow tunnels with an alternate route, and ways with no amenities traversing the desert outback (why would you bike or hike that anyway?)). Though this particular access restriction peculiarity makes me wonder if there's hitchhiking= access tags in common use yet, since Washington prohibits the practice on motorways, but Oregon lets you hitchhike and stop for hitchhikers anywhere except within about 2km of a prison. But cycle superhighways are pretty rare, and highway=cycleway is used much more widely than that. I've come to the view that cycleway should be used if someone's gone to the trouble to make it good enough to cycle on, and nobody's obviously objecting. I'll grant that... and highway=cycleway, pedestrian=no is an oddball enough combination that even where it /is/ a common situation (Interstate NCNs around Portland), there's still a good chance for bicycle/pedestrian traffic conflicts because some dork decided a pedestrians-prohibited 14-foot-wide cycleway hemmed in by two 10-foot-high fences next to a freeway is a nice, pleasant place to go dogging with a 20-foot-long leash (when it's obviously a commuter corridor where pedestrians present a real safety hazard to themselves and others). There are people who think calling it a cycleway is somehow anti-pedestrian. I would certainly suggest to renderers that cycleway may not be the best description - foot/cycleway might be better. Do we need to change the word we use for the tag - probably wouldn't be a bad idea, but maybe not a priority. I'm not sure that's quite the best description, because the designations aren't interchangeable (some cycleways prohibit pedestrians, most footways don't allow bicycles). Do we need some other way of tagging the cycle superhighways? Maybe. Personally I think it's more important to tag the cycle networks (lcn/rcn/ncn), so map-readers and routers will pick out those routes, and avoid the less-suitable (but still accessible) routes. It's also helpful to tag cycle barriers (barrier=cycle_barrier), which are widely used to discourage the use of less-suitable (but still accessible) routes. Indeed. Maximum widths and lengths would be extremely useful at these barriers as well, in any location where the cycle lane is narrower than the legally prescribed minimum cycle lane width, or where particularly long human-powered vehicle combinations (tandem, bike towing trailer, third wheel pusher kid seats, surreys) would have difficulty negotiating the obstacle. I can think of a number of spots on cycleways in Beaverton that prohibit pedestrians, but have overzealous anti-motorist measures, the most common of which being gaps in fences at school boundaries intended to get cyclists down to walking speed (as the gap is barely wider than handlebars) but do a better job at hamstringing inexperienced riders, surreys and bicycle trailers. The most extreme of which appear at some intersections built in the late 1960s, which feature an offset gap around shin high with entry and exit turns that are frequently too sharp for an unencumbered bicycle longer than 4 feet to make the turns without having to get up and just carry it over the barrier (equal call in that area whether it was NIMBYs annoyed about the prospect of having bicycle traffic on their back fencelines, or simply the work of a civil engineer who hasn't seen a bicycle since grade school at play here). At least in Beaverton, unless you plan your trip well and you know the obstacles really well, these barriers can make pulling a bike trailer or driving a surrey impossible, and getting around on a bicycle larger than you would expect a pre-teen to ride difficult. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
In the UK the term 'bridleway' tends to be confined to either (a) public bridleways - where the term has a legally defined meaning, or (b) permissive bridleways, usually detectable from signage. I would tag the former as highway=bridleway, horse=yes, bicycle=yes (default in English law), foot=yes, designation=public_bridleway plus any appropriate surface= or tracktype= . I would tag the second as highway=track, horse=permissive - with no designation= tag and again surface= and/or tracktype= as appropriate. Others may see it differently ... Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] Sent: 30 April 2009 22:54 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes Jacek Konieczny wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Mario Salvini wrote: If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you tag them both as designated? highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway +bicycle=designated or cycleway+foot=desiganted) I do that, when the paths are designated for both. I use 'cycleway+foot=designated' as those were usually built with bicycles in mind and I prefer using path for the more 'raw', usually unpaved paths, like in a forest. But there are foot paths which are not designated by bicycles, but bicycles are allowed there. Could someone clarify the difference between path and bridleway? AFAICT, the only obvious difference is path is access=no, foot=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes, whereas the bridleway is only access=no, foot=yes, horse=yes. The former is commonly a former railroad, and is not paved (though is usually graded and surfaced in peat), the latter tends to be in yuppie neighborhoods around major cities (like around the fringes of Los Angeles County where the rich go pretend to be cowboy riding in a manicured bridleway next to a boulevard...). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
About 14000 of the 14990 appear to be using highway=path for woodland paths, in Germany, and without designated access tags. The punters appear to want something that doesn't show up as a footway/cycleway. Richard On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being used to me. And I'm mightily concerned that the 10 people discussing it on these lists might be in no way representative of the 14,990 people who are mapping paths and aren't in these discussions. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
I would nowadays tend to do the same as our German friends for rural paths that had no legal right of passage on foot and were not wide enough to be called tracks. Having said that, I used to use highway=footway for these plus foot=permissive - so I am still not really sure which is the better option! Mike Harris _ From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com] Sent: 01 May 2009 13:15 To: Andy Allan Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes About 14000 of the 14990 appear to be using highway=path for woodland paths, in Germany, and without designated access tags. The punters appear to want something that doesn't show up as a footway/cycleway. Richard On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being used to me. And I'm mightily concerned that the 10 people discussing it on these lists might be in no way representative of the 14,990 people who are mapping paths and aren't in these discussions. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
At the risk of reopening earlier very lengthy discussions - this suggestion
seems to me to be an unnecessary misuse of the tag highway=cycleway which
has an accepted and fairly well agreed meaning. It also seems to be a prima
facie case of tagging for the renderers! Surely it is the rendering that
needs to be adjusted - not the data!
Mike Harris
_
From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com]
Sent: 29 April 2009 21:10
To: Marc Schütz
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Why not tag it as a cycleway? Then it will display as a cycleway. How is it
different from anything else that might be tagged as a cycleway?
Richard
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net wrote:
Right now, ways highway=footway or highway=path,foot=designated where riding
a bicycle is allowed with bicycle={yes,designated} are rendered as normal
footways, so there is no way to see that they are open for bikes.
Is there a chance this could be shown on Mapnik, or at least on the
cyclemap? Maybe a mixed blue-red line, or even dashes for the designated
vehicle type, and dots for the one with yes?
Regards, Marc
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
2009/4/30 Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com: At the risk of reopening earlier very lengthy discussions - this suggestion seems to me to be an unnecessary misuse of the tag highway=cycleway which has an accepted and fairly well agreed meaning. It also seems to be a prima facie case of tagging for the renderers! Surely it is the rendering that needs to be adjusted - not the data! Risk?! Misuse how? Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are designed and designated for bicycles. For example in our local park bikes can go on all the paths, but there are some specific divided cycle paths too. (We are in Scotland so bikes can legally go anywhere that pedestrians can go, more or less) James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Risk?! Misuse how? Dave My idea: highway=cycleway OR (highway=footway,bicycle=permissive) don't care which (so will be picked up by bike-orientated maps) *and* foot=designated designation=public_footpath so that foot orientated renderers like Freemap will pick it up as a public right of way, and it will be recorded as public right of way. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:36:43AM +0100, James Stewart wrote: There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are designed and designated for bicycles. Sure. For example in our local park bikes can go on all the paths, but there are some specific divided cycle paths too. (We are in Scotland so bikes can legally go anywhere that pedestrians can go, more or less) So such foot path rendered as a foot path only is not a problem for you, as you know that means bicycles may go there. In Poland generally bicycles are forbidden on ways for pedestrians, with many exceptions (if you go with a child, if other way is too far, if it is a sidewalk of a street where cars may go over specific speed…). And pedestrians are welcome on designated cycle-only ways. But many cycle ways are designated for both bicycles and pedestrians. So there is difference between highway=footway, highway=footway,bicycle=yes, highway=cycleway and highway=cycleway,foot=yes and it would be really good if all those could be distinguished, at least on a cycle map. And I agree that marking a footway a bicycleway only because bicycles my go there is kind of abuse and tagging for renderers (which have the data in other tags anyway). Greets, Jacek ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Jacek Konieczny schrieb: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:36:43AM +0100, James Stewart wrote: There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are designed and designated for bicycles. Sure. For example in our local park bikes can go on all the paths, but there are some specific divided cycle paths too. (We are in Scotland so bikes can legally go anywhere that pedestrians can go, more or less) So such foot path rendered as a foot path only is not a problem for you, as you know that means bicycles may go there. In Poland generally bicycles are forbidden on ways for pedestrians, with many exceptions (if you go with a child, if other way is too far, if it is a sidewalk of a street where cars may go over specific speed…). And pedestrians are welcome on designated cycle-only ways. But many cycle ways are designated for both bicycles and pedestrians. So there is difference between highway=footway, highway=footway,bicycle=yes, highway=cycleway and highway=cycleway,foot=yes and it would be really good if all those could be distinguished, at least on a cycle map. And I agree that marking a footway a bicycleway only because bicycles my go there is kind of abuse and tagging for renderers (which have the data in other tags anyway). Greets, Jacek ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you tag them both as designated? highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway +bicycle=designated or cycleway+foot=desiganted) -- Mario ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
It comes down to what you think is meant by highway=cycleway. If you think that it means a cycle superhighway, then obviously you don't want to apply that to a shared-with-pedestrians route. But cycle superhighways are pretty rare, and highway=cycleway is used much more widely than that. I've come to the view that cycleway should be used if someone's gone to the trouble to make it good enough to cycle on, and nobody's obviously objecting. There are people who think calling it a cycleway is somehow anti-pedestrian. I would certainly suggest to renderers that cycleway may not be the best description - foot/cycleway might be better. Do we need to change the word we use for the tag - probably wouldn't be a bad idea, but maybe not a priority. Do we need some other way of tagging the cycle superhighways? Maybe. Personally I think it's more important to tag the cycle networks (lcn/rcn/ncn), so map-readers and routers will pick out those routes, and avoid the less-suitable (but still accessible) routes. It's also helpful to tag cycle barriers (barrier=cycle_barrier), which are widely used to discourage the use of less-suitable (but still accessible) routes. And yes I am weeks ovredue with writing all this up in a proposal... Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Mario Salvini wrote: If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you tag them both as designated? highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway +bicycle=designated or cycleway+foot=desiganted) I do that, when the paths are designated for both. I use 'cycleway+foot=designated' as those were usually built with bicycles in mind and I prefer using path for the more 'raw', usually unpaved paths, like in a forest. But there are foot paths which are not designated by bicycles, but bicycles are allowed there. The problem is that footway is always rendered the same, not matter if it is also tagged bicycle=yes or bicycle=designated (though I am not sure about the latter), which is not a problem on a generic road map, but is quite a problem for cycle/tourist maps. So, I guess, this thread is about a feature request for renderers. Nothing to fight about :) Greets, Jacek ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Richard Mann wrote: ... I've come to the view that cycleway should be used if someone's gone to the trouble to make it good enough to cycle on, and nobody's obviously objecting. I'd agree with that. As a non-cyclist I don't feel somehow discriminated against because somewhere that I walk also permits cyclists (and horseriders*). It's also worth mention that outside of England and Wales cycle access on what we'd call in the vernacular a footpath is sometimes normal (e.g. fietspad in the Netherlands, which means Bicycle Path and is often used where we'd say there's a footpath between A and B). *Except when you're walking home in the dark and someone's emptied their horse all over the middle of the path and you didn't see it until too late... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used (for raw paths as you describe them). The dark grey dashed lines in Mapnik seem a good starting point. If path was rendered then the problem kinda goes away - use cycleway for good ways that are OK to cycle on, footway for good ways that are not OK to cycle on, and path for raw ways where access rights are unclear. That probably covers the bulk of situations. Richard On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Jacek Konieczny jaj...@jajcus.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Mario Salvini wrote: If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you tag them both as designated? highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway +bicycle=designated or cycleway+foot=desiganted) I do that, when the paths are designated for both. I use 'cycleway+foot=designated' as those were usually built with bicycles in mind and I prefer using path for the more 'raw', usually unpaved paths, like in a forest. But there are foot paths which are not designated by bicycles, but bicycles are allowed there. The problem is that footway is always rendered the same, not matter if it is also tagged bicycle=yes or bicycle=designated (though I am not sure about the latter), which is not a problem on a generic road map, but is quite a problem for cycle/tourist maps. So, I guess, this thread is about a feature request for renderers. Nothing to fight about :) Greets, Jacek ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being used to me. And I'm mightily concerned that the 10 people discussing it on these lists might be in no way representative of the 14,990 people who are mapping paths and aren't in these discussions. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
full ack some tags are too confusing ... on a lighter note: from tagwatch typo or protest against a very_horrible tag ;-) smoothmess horrible (4), impassable (1) On 30 Apr 2009, at 8:59 , Andy Allan wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being used to me. And I'm mightily concerned that the 10 people discussing it on these lists might be in no way representative of the 14,990 people who are mapping paths and aren't in these discussions. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
On Thursday 30 April 2009, Andy Allan wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being used to me. And I'm mightily concerned that the 10 people discussing it on these lists might be in no way representative of the 14,990 people who are mapping paths and aren't in these discussions. I've done a completely 180 turn on using cycleway/footway/path since the introduction of path. I used to tag any path where cyclists are allowed as cycleway (whether it was actually suitable or not didn't really matter). And bridleway was completely unused by me (in the end if horses would be allowed I'd tag them as cycleway as well if cyclists were allowed). Although it was a pretty consistent way tagging, it could well confuse people looking at the maps. So now I basically use highway=path everywhere, and add the restrictions as signed on it (vehicle=no, horse=no, bicycle=no, etc). Given the specific legal meaning of a word like cycleway I only tag those as such when the paths have a blue round sign with a bicycle/pedestrian/horse (so when they're legally defined as cycleway/footway/bridleway). Because a path where no vehicles are allowed except bicycles is just not a cycleway (which also implies different traffic rules). Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
2009/4/30, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com: Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being used to me. And I'm mightily concerned that the 10 people discussing it on these lists might be in no way representative of the 14,990 people who are mapping paths and aren't in these discussions. If you read the proposal on the wiki, you should be able to get an idea of what highway=path was *meant* to be. (an thats not a very narrow or rough way in the forest, worse than footway) Btw how clear is the current usage of highway=cycleway to you? It ranges from officially designated cycleway, way that is comfortably usable by bike to some way you *could* physically use with a bicycle (and wake up in hospital). ;-) -Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Fully agree - and this seems to be in the spirit of most current practice ... Mike Harris -Original Message- From: James Stewart [mailto:j.k.stew...@ed.ac.uk] Sent: 30 April 2009 11:37 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are designed and designated for bicycles. For example in our local park bikes can go on all the paths, but there are some specific divided cycle paths too. (We are in Scotland so bikes can legally go anywhere that pedestrians can go, more or less) James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Mario - perhaps inadvertently, but importantly - raises a separate issue for those of us who like the tag designation= . This tag is afaik a more recent introduction than designated= . Although the intention was much the same in each case the wiki descriptions are subtly different. My personal preference is for the definitions and examples shown under designation= and this is what I am now using. It doesn't matter at all in the English language which word is used for the key (designated or designation) but wouldn't it be a lot clearer if we could all agree on one word or the other to avoid possible future confusion? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Mario Salvini [mailto:salv...@t-online.de] Sent: 30 April 2009 12:10 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes Jacek Konieczny schrieb: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:36:43AM +0100, James Stewart wrote: There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are designed and designated for bicycles. Sure. For example in our local park bikes can go on all the paths, but there are some specific divided cycle paths too. (We are in Scotland so bikes can legally go anywhere that pedestrians can go, more or less) So such foot path rendered as a foot path only is not a problem for you, as you know that means bicycles may go there. In Poland generally bicycles are forbidden on ways for pedestrians, with many exceptions (if you go with a child, if other way is too far, if it is a sidewalk of a street where cars may go over specific speed…). And pedestrians are welcome on designated cycle-only ways. But many cycle ways are designated for both bicycles and pedestrians. So there is difference between highway=footway, highway=footway,bicycle=yes, highway=cycleway and highway=cycleway,foot=yes and it would be really good if all those could be distinguished, at least on a cycle map. And I agree that marking a footway a bicycleway only because bicycles my go there is kind of abuse and tagging for renderers (which have the data in other tags anyway). Greets, Jacek ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you tag them both as designated? highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway +bicycle=designated or cycleway+foot=desiganted) -- Mario ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
... Part way with James but recognising Jacek's point it would need adding bicycle=permissive or bicycle=yes as appropriate so that the cycle renderers pick up. Where appropriate (e.g. often in the UK) the use of designation=public_footpath (meaning that the default is bicycle=no unless otherwise modified with bicycle= ) or designation=public_bridleway (meaning that the default is bicycle=yes unless otherwise modified with bicycle= ). The adoption of the designation= tag in the UK seems to be a good solution to the dilemmas otherwise created by trying to compromise between tagging what is there on the ground and tagging for legal access status (with both purposes being valid objectives for at least a subset of users). Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Jacek Konieczny [mailto:jaj...@jajcus.net] Sent: 30 April 2009 12:00 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:36:43AM +0100, James Stewart wrote: There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are designed and designated for bicycles. Sure. For example in our local park bikes can go on all the paths, but there are some specific divided cycle paths too. (We are in Scotland so bikes can legally go anywhere that pedestrians can go, more or less) So such foot path rendered as a foot path only is not a problem for you, as you know that means bicycles may go there. In Poland generally bicycles are forbidden on ways for pedestrians, with many exceptions (if you go with a child, if other way is too far, if it is a sidewalk of a street where cars may go over specific speed…). And pedestrians are welcome on designated cycle-only ways. But many cycle ways are designated for both bicycles and pedestrians. So there is difference between highway=footway, highway=footway,bicycle=yes, highway=cycleway and highway=cycleway,foot=yes and it would be really good if all those could be distinguished, at least on a cycle map. And I agree that marking a footway a bicycleway only because bicycles my go there is kind of abuse and tagging for renderers (which have the data in other tags anyway). Greets, Jacek ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Andy Allan [mailto:gravityst...@gmail.com] Sent: 30 April 2009 17:00 To: Richard Mann Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being used to me. And I'm mightily concerned that the 10 people discussing it on these lists might be in no way representative of the 14,990 people who are mapping paths and aren't in these discussions. Cheers, Andy I had hoped we were approaching some clarity and consensus - don't let's despair (yet!) ... Sorry about the other 14,990 - but we can't force people to contribute to a chat (!) and nothing much is likely to change in a dramatic way without a bit of a vote or summat on the wiki (?) - and this is all probably a bit specialist and esoteric so perhaps the other 14,990 don't really care? After all it's their privilege! Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
I could more or less go with this too - but perhaps only if we could adopt more widely the use of designation= (or designated= - see earlier post!) to allow the definition of legal status (mostly in the UK admittedly) for those of us who are public rights of way workers. Is there a case for adding highway=track to the mix? Personally I find it useful to use highway=track for ways that are (mostly) not paved but physically wide enough for four-wheeled traffic - regardless of whether the designation would be as a public footpath, public bridleway or whatever; tracktype= can be added to further define surface and foot/bicycle/horse/etc. = can also be added. I would also think that a clear-cut highway=cycleway would automatically take priority over highway=track as it is more informative. By the same token I find it quite useful to use highway=path for a way that it is not wide enough for four-wheel traffic, is not a 'designated' public right of way or permissive path and is rural (as highway=footway seems a bit strange in these cases but fine in an urban context). Mike Harris _ From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com] Sent: 30 April 2009 15:10 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used (for raw paths as you describe them). The dark grey dashed lines in Mapnik seem a good starting point. If path was rendered then the problem kinda goes away - use cycleway for good ways that are OK to cycle on, footway for good ways that are not OK to cycle on, and path for raw ways where access rights are unclear. That probably covers the bulk of situations. Richard On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Jacek Konieczny jaj...@jajcus.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Mario Salvini wrote: If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you tag them both as designated? highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway +bicycle=designated or cycleway+foot=desiganted) I do that, when the paths are designated for both. I use 'cycleway+foot=designated' as those were usually built with bicycles in mind and I prefer using path for the more 'raw', usually unpaved paths, like in a forest. But there are foot paths which are not designated by bicycles, but bicycles are allowed there. The problem is that footway is always rendered the same, not matter if it is also tagged bicycle=yes or bicycle=designated (though I am not sure about the latter), which is not a problem on a generic road map, but is quite a problem for cycle/tourist maps. So, I guess, this thread is about a feature request for renderers. Nothing to fight about :) Greets, Jacek ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
... Hmm! Interesting alternative approach ... Not sure what I think ... Worth discussing ... By now everyone who cares knows that I like the designation= tag as it solves a lot of problems for me but that is equally compatible with Ben's approach as with any other. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Ben Laenen [mailto:benlae...@gmail.com] Sent: 30 April 2009 17:21 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes On Thursday 30 April 2009, Andy Allan wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being used to me. And I'm mightily concerned that the 10 people discussing it on these lists might be in no way representative of the 14,990 people who are mapping paths and aren't in these discussions. I've done a completely 180 turn on using cycleway/footway/path since the introduction of path. I used to tag any path where cyclists are allowed as cycleway (whether it was actually suitable or not didn't really matter). And bridleway was completely unused by me (in the end if horses would be allowed I'd tag them as cycleway as well if cyclists were allowed). Although it was a pretty consistent way tagging, it could well confuse people looking at the maps. So now I basically use highway=path everywhere, and add the restrictions as signed on it (vehicle=no, horse=no, bicycle=no, etc). Given the specific legal meaning of a word like cycleway I only tag those as such when the paths have a blue round sign with a bicycle/pedestrian/horse (so when they're legally defined as cycleway/footway/bridleway). Because a path where no vehicles are allowed except bicycles is just not a cycleway (which also implies different traffic rules). Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
, it is fragmentary. It would be very good to get this sorted out before lots more people here become involved. Ed Hillsman On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:59:50 +0100, Andy Allen gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes To: Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: c4193f8c0904300859w5129fc28pdbc264c08c920...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being used to me. And I'm mightily concerned that the 10 people discussing it on these lists might be in no way representative of the 14,990 people who are mapping paths and aren't in these discussions. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Richard Mann wrote: Why not tag it as a cycleway? Then it will display as a cycleway. How is it different from anything else that might be tagged as a cycleway? At least when I'm trying to decide, I ask two questions: 1) Does it allow bicycles, and 2) Is it wide enough for two cyclists going in opposite directions at a substantial rate of speed to pass each other without hitting, swerving or slowing down, assuming each is keeping to the legally required side of the path (ie, right in most countries, left in the commonwealths)? If the answer to either question is no, then it's a footway, weather or not bicycle=yes. My assumption being that odds are someone wants to know whether a cyclist can pass knowing that taking a bicycle that direction isn't the best idea if you tend to pedal faster than jogging speed. Obviously, there's a few exceptions, such as one-way cycleways where it's obvious the intended use is not pedestrian, and pedestrian malls where the use is primarily pedestrian, but cyclists may be able to traverse the mall on select footpaths without dismounting (ie, cyclists will probably have to slow down dramatically and keep eyes peeled for Kamikaze pedestrians not expecting vehicular traffic). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Richard Mann wrote: It comes down to what you think is meant by highway=cycleway. If you think that it means a cycle superhighway, then obviously you don't want to apply that to a shared-with-pedestrians route. Depends on jurisdiction, of course. One problem OSM has with handling Oregon and Washington State properly is people are bad about tagging foot=yes and bicycle=yes to highway types that default to no for those vehicle classes (since /all/ ways, including motorways, are open to bicycles and pedestrians unless otherwise posted, in Oregon and Washington State, and the only ways that commonly disallow pedestrians and bicycles are narrow tunnels with an alternate route, and ways with no amenities traversing the desert outback (why would you bike or hike that anyway?)). Though this particular access restriction peculiarity makes me wonder if there's hitchhiking= access tags in common use yet, since Washington prohibits the practice on motorways, but Oregon lets you hitchhike and stop for hitchhikers anywhere except within about 2km of a prison. But cycle superhighways are pretty rare, and highway=cycleway is used much more widely than that. I've come to the view that cycleway should be used if someone's gone to the trouble to make it good enough to cycle on, and nobody's obviously objecting. I'll grant that... and highway=cycleway, pedestrian=no is an oddball enough combination that even where it /is/ a common situation (Interstate NCNs around Portland), there's still a good chance for bicycle/pedestrian traffic conflicts because some dork decided a pedestrians-prohibited 14-foot-wide cycleway hemmed in by two 10-foot-high fences next to a freeway is a nice, pleasant place to go dogging with a 20-foot-long leash (when it's obviously a commuter corridor where pedestrians present a real safety hazard to themselves and others). There are people who think calling it a cycleway is somehow anti-pedestrian. I would certainly suggest to renderers that cycleway may not be the best description - foot/cycleway might be better. Do we need to change the word we use for the tag - probably wouldn't be a bad idea, but maybe not a priority. I'm not sure that's quite the best description, because the designations aren't interchangeable (some cycleways prohibit pedestrians, most footways don't allow bicycles). Do we need some other way of tagging the cycle superhighways? Maybe. Personally I think it's more important to tag the cycle networks (lcn/rcn/ncn), so map-readers and routers will pick out those routes, and avoid the less-suitable (but still accessible) routes. It's also helpful to tag cycle barriers (barrier=cycle_barrier), which are widely used to discourage the use of less-suitable (but still accessible) routes. Indeed. Maximum widths and lengths would be extremely useful at these barriers as well, in any location where the cycle lane is narrower than the legally prescribed minimum cycle lane width, or where particularly long human-powered vehicle combinations (tandem, bike towing trailer, third wheel pusher kid seats, surreys) would have difficulty negotiating the obstacle. I can think of a number of spots on cycleways in Beaverton that prohibit pedestrians, but have overzealous anti-motorist measures, the most common of which being gaps in fences at school boundaries intended to get cyclists down to walking speed (as the gap is barely wider than handlebars) but do a better job at hamstringing inexperienced riders, surreys and bicycle trailers. The most extreme of which appear at some intersections built in the late 1960s, which feature an offset gap around shin high with entry and exit turns that are frequently too sharp for an unencumbered bicycle longer than 4 feet to make the turns without having to get up and just carry it over the barrier (equal call in that area whether it was NIMBYs annoyed about the prospect of having bicycle traffic on their back fencelines, or simply the work of a civil engineer who hasn't seen a bicycle since grade school at play here). At least in Beaverton, unless you plan your trip well and you know the obstacles really well, these barriers can make pulling a bike trailer or driving a surrey impossible, and getting around on a bicycle larger than you would expect a pre-teen to ride difficult. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Jacek Konieczny wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Mario Salvini wrote: If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you tag them both as designated? highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway +bicycle=designated or cycleway+foot=desiganted) I do that, when the paths are designated for both. I use 'cycleway+foot=designated' as those were usually built with bicycles in mind and I prefer using path for the more 'raw', usually unpaved paths, like in a forest. But there are foot paths which are not designated by bicycles, but bicycles are allowed there. Could someone clarify the difference between path and bridleway? AFAICT, the only obvious difference is path is access=no, foot=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes, whereas the bridleway is only access=no, foot=yes, horse=yes. The former is commonly a former railroad, and is not paved (though is usually graded and surfaced in peat), the latter tends to be in yuppie neighborhoods around major cities (like around the fringes of Los Angeles County where the rich go pretend to be cowboy riding in a manicured bridleway next to a boulevard...). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Right now, ways highway=footway or highway=path,foot=designated where riding a
bicycle is allowed with bicycle={yes,designated} are rendered as normal
footways, so there is no way to see that they are open for bikes.
Is there a chance this could be shown on Mapnik, or at least on the cyclemap?
Maybe a mixed blue-red line, or even dashes for the designated vehicle type,
and dots for the one with yes?
Regards, Marc
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Why not tag it as a cycleway? Then it will display as a cycleway. How is it
different from anything else that might be tagged as a cycleway?
Richard
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net wrote:
Right now, ways highway=footway or highway=path,foot=designated where
riding a bicycle is allowed with bicycle={yes,designated} are rendered as
normal footways, so there is no way to see that they are open for bikes.
Is there a chance this could be shown on Mapnik, or at least on the
cyclemap? Maybe a mixed blue-red line, or even dashes for the designated
vehicle type, and dots for the one with yes?
Regards, Marc
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
