Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
If it's good enough for a horse and a mountain-bike, but not really a normal bicycle, I'd tag it as highway=bridleway in the UK, highway=path (+horse=yes if explicitly signposted) elsewhere. If it's been improved such to be good enough for a normal bicycle, I'd tag it as highway=cycleway+designation=public_bridleway+horse=yes. I'm intending to add much of this to Mike's designation proposal in the next few days, though I feel the need to understand a bit more about how/where path is being used in Germany first. Richard On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com wrote: By the way - in England and Wales, cyclists are normally allowed to use public bridleways (but the highways authority has no obligation to maintain the way to a standard that makes it possible to cycle) unless explicitly forbidden by a very localised regulation. Cyclists must also give way to cyclists and horse riders. I would normally tag these as highway=bridleway with foot/horse/bicycle=yes. An alternative would be to use designation=public_bridleway - in which case, what do people think should be the value for the highway tag? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Chris Hill [mailto:chillly...@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 28 March 2009 12:30 To: Stephen Hope; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway Cyclists are often going to be asked to give way to pedestrians. Cycle routes often (usually) allow pedestrian access too. I would tag it as a cycleway with foot=yes. The fact that they are part of a cycle trail reinforces this to me. But, hey, get it in the database as something close to right is the most important thing, it can always be changed later and its very presence attracts interest, use and possible improvement. cheers, Chris - Original Message From: Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com To: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Saturday, 28 March, 2009 5:50:01 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway OK, so while we're talking about this, there are a number of paths near me. Nice smooth concrete, about 2m wide. They run through parks, and there are signs on the park as a whole that say No motorised vehicles. These paths are marked with a sign that has a pedestrian and a bicycle, and another sign that says Cyclists give way to Pedestrians. How would you normally mark these? I've used footway, plus bicycle=yes. I don't feel right calling it a cycleway if they have to give way to other users. Just to confuse the issue, some of them also have name signs, and most of these names are Xxxx cycle trail (or similar). Even on these, though, pedestrians still have right of way. Stephen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ 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] highway=cyclefootway
I think internationally it is quite rare for cyclists to have priority over pedestrians on cycleways (maybe only Germany). I remember wandering onto the cyclist half of a pavement/sidewalk in Germany, and eventually noticing that someone was riding behind me, repeatedly ringing their bell to get me to move. In the UK, they'd have have just switched to the pedestrian side of the pavement/sidewalk, and ridden round me, probably illegally, but that doesn't usually seem to stop them. I'm not sure I really like the term cycleway, and perhaps renderers could come up with something less pedestrian-unfriendly for their map keys. But it does describe the physical reality - something that's been engineered (whether deliberately or accidentally) to be just good enough for bikes. So I'd tag it as cycleway. Richard On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: OK, so while we're talking about this, there are a number of paths near me. Nice smooth concrete, about 2m wide. They run through parks, and there are signs on the park as a whole that say No motorised vehicles. These paths are marked with a sign that has a pedestrian and a bicycle, and another sign that says Cyclists give way to Pedestrians. How would you normally mark these? I've used footway, plus bicycle=yes. I don't feel right calling it a cycleway if they have to give way to other users. Just to confuse the issue, some of them also have name signs, and most of these names are Xxxx cycle trail (or similar). Even on these, though, pedestrians still have right of way. Stephen ___ 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] highway=cyclefootway
Stephen Hope wrote: OK, so while we're talking about this, there are a number of paths near me. Nice smooth concrete, about 2m wide. They run through parks, and there are signs on the park as a whole that say No motorised vehicles. These paths are marked with a sign that has a pedestrian and a bicycle, and another sign that says Cyclists give way to Pedestrians. How would you normally mark these? I've used footway, plus bicycle=yes. I don't feel right calling it a cycleway if they have to give way to other users. I would tag it as highway=path+bicycle=designated+foot=designated. highway=cycleway+foot=designated would also make sense, IMO. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Hatto von Hatzfeld wrote: Russ Nelson wrote: On Mar 28, 2009, at 1:50 AM, Stephen Hope wrote: I don't feel right calling it a cycleway if they have to give way to other users. Cyclists ALWAYS have to give way to other users. It's a simple matter of the laws of physics. At least here in Germany there are cycleways which are not allowed for pedestrians and others which are shared by cyclists and pedestrians. This is also true in at least some parts of the US. I suppose it's technically still true that cyclists have to at least try to give way (I assume that if a pedestrian is walking down the motorway, motorists shouldn't just casually run them down; the cycleway situation is similar) -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
-Original Message- From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk- boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Mike Harris Sent: 28 March 2009 15:05 To: 'Chris Hill'; 'Stephen Hope'; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway By the way - in England and Wales, cyclists are normally allowed to use public bridleways (but the highways authority has no obligation to maintain the way to a standard that makes it possible to cycle) unless explicitly forbidden by a very localised regulation. Cyclists must also give way to cyclists and horse riders. [Snip] I guess you meant that cyclists are meant to give way to pedestrians and horse riders. Cyclists having to give way to other cyclists would lead to deadlock :-) Gregory ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Whoops! Yes - cyclists are supposed to give way to pedestrians and horse riders. Fingers faster than brain - sorry! Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Gregory Williams [mailto:gregory.willi...@purplegeodesoftware.co.uk] Sent: 29 March 2009 15:09 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway -Original Message- From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk- boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Mike Harris Sent: 28 March 2009 15:05 To: 'Chris Hill'; 'Stephen Hope'; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway By the way - in England and Wales, cyclists are normally allowed to use public bridleways (but the highways authority has no obligation to maintain the way to a standard that makes it possible to cycle) unless explicitly forbidden by a very localised regulation. Cyclists must also give way to cyclists and horse riders. [Snip] I guess you meant that cyclists are meant to give way to pedestrians and horse riders. Cyclists having to give way to other cyclists would lead to deadlock :-) Gregory ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
On Mar 28, 2009, at 1:50 AM, Stephen Hope wrote: I don't feel right calling it a cycleway if they have to give way to other users. Cyclists ALWAYS have to give way to other users. It's a simple matter of the laws of physics. But maybe there are dedicated cycleways in some places where pedestrians enter at the risk of their lives? I know of no such. -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - Twitter: Russ_OSM - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Cyclists are often going to be asked to give way to pedestrians. Cycle routes often (usually) allow pedestrian access too. I would tag it as a cycleway with foot=yes. The fact that they are part of a cycle trail reinforces this to me. But, hey, get it in the database as something close to right is the most important thing, it can always be changed later and its very presence attracts interest, use and possible improvement. cheers, Chris - Original Message From: Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com To: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Saturday, 28 March, 2009 5:50:01 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway OK, so while we're talking about this, there are a number of paths near me. Nice smooth concrete, about 2m wide. They run through parks, and there are signs on the park as a whole that say No motorised vehicles. These paths are marked with a sign that has a pedestrian and a bicycle, and another sign that says Cyclists give way to Pedestrians. How would you normally mark these? I've used footway, plus bicycle=yes. I don't feel right calling it a cycleway if they have to give way to other users. Just to confuse the issue, some of them also have name signs, and most of these names are Xxxx cycle trail (or similar). Even on these, though, pedestrians still have right of way. Stephen ___ 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] highway=cyclefootway
Russ Nelson wrote: On Mar 28, 2009, at 1:50 AM, Stephen Hope wrote: I don't feel right calling it a cycleway if they have to give way to other users. Cyclists ALWAYS have to give way to other users. It's a simple matter of the laws of physics. At least here in Germany there are cycleways which are not allowed for pedestrians and others which are shared by cyclists and pedestrians. But maybe there are dedicated cycleways in some places where pedestrians enter at the risk of their lives? In some places (e.g. in Munich) it is the life of the cyclist which is risked by pedestrians entering the cyclelists' exclusive track ... Bye, Hatto ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
By the way - in England and Wales, cyclists are normally allowed to use public bridleways (but the highways authority has no obligation to maintain the way to a standard that makes it possible to cycle) unless explicitly forbidden by a very localised regulation. Cyclists must also give way to cyclists and horse riders. I would normally tag these as highway=bridleway with foot/horse/bicycle=yes. An alternative would be to use designation=public_bridleway - in which case, what do people think should be the value for the highway tag? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Chris Hill [mailto:chillly...@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 28 March 2009 12:30 To: Stephen Hope; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway Cyclists are often going to be asked to give way to pedestrians. Cycle routes often (usually) allow pedestrian access too. I would tag it as a cycleway with foot=yes. The fact that they are part of a cycle trail reinforces this to me. But, hey, get it in the database as something close to right is the most important thing, it can always be changed later and its very presence attracts interest, use and possible improvement. cheers, Chris - Original Message From: Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com To: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Saturday, 28 March, 2009 5:50:01 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway OK, so while we're talking about this, there are a number of paths near me. Nice smooth concrete, about 2m wide. They run through parks, and there are signs on the park as a whole that say No motorised vehicles. These paths are marked with a sign that has a pedestrian and a bicycle, and another sign that says Cyclists give way to Pedestrians. How would you normally mark these? I've used footway, plus bicycle=yes. I don't feel right calling it a cycleway if they have to give way to other users. Just to confuse the issue, some of them also have name signs, and most of these names are Xxxx cycle trail (or similar). Even on these, though, pedestrians still have right of way. Stephen ___ 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] highway=cyclefootway
Map Features says that highway=cycleway should be used for ways that are mainly/exclusively for bicycles. Does that mean that all those cycleways in the Netherlands have (implicit) footways alongside, or that there are so few pedestrians that the way can be regarded as mainly for bicycles, or that they tag them as cycleways even though there are a fair number of pedestrians? (As for having a show of hands in a pub - that may be one way to exclude David's view - but I'd rather reach consensus) Richard (West Oxford) On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Someoneelse li...@mail.atownsend.org.ukwrote: Richard Mann wrote: Only the British use bridleway. The Dutch have markedly few footways (which probably indicates cycleway is being used quite loosely). My recollection of both urban and rural bits of the Netherlands is that there actually are fewer footways than cycleways - I've had a look at the map of a couple of bits that I'm familiar with (Maarssen, Scherpenzeel and the German border near Enschede FWIW) and (with a couple of exceptions) what's mapped matches pretty much I'd expect to be if the same feature were mapped in the UK. My experience of the Netherlands, Germany and Scandinavia is that it's the UK that's the odd one out in having fewer cycleways than the norm for northwestern Europe. Obviously this has no bearing on whether a particular route in Oxford should be labelled as a bridleway or a cycleway (I've never been there and can't comment). Maybe arrange a meeting in a local pub and have a show of hands? ___ 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] highway=cyclefootway
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:25 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.comwrote: On 26/03/2009 17:14, Richard Mann wrote: highway=cycleway+designation=public_bridleway does the job with the minimum of fuss. and requires us either to change the renderers or mislead horse riders. David I think the OSM principle is that you get the tagging coherent, and let the renderers adapt. I don't suppose there are actually many improved bridleways out there that would get re-tagged and horse-riders misled. There are probably already quite a lot that have been tagged as cycleways, with the designation information lost. As for rendering, I might go for red-dotted for footway, green-dashed for path, green-dash-dotted for bridleway, blue-dashed for cycleway and blue-dash-dotted for (cycleway (designation=public_bridleway or horse=yes)). But that's not my call. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Richard Mann wrote: Map Features says that highway=cycleway should be used for ways that are mainly/exclusively for bicycles. Does that mean that all those cycleways in the Netherlands have (implicit) footways alongside, or that there are so few pedestrians that the way can be regarded as mainly for bicycles, or that they tag them as cycleways even though there are a fair number of pedestrians? Well, pedestrians are allowed to walk on any road if there is no pavement or cycleway next to it (exceptions are motorways and the use of a sign barring pedestrians) and are always allowed to walk on cycleways. And as we all have a bike, cycling is more common than walking. It is certainly not that a cycleway usually has a footway next to it. On the contrary, it usually does not. As the term bridleway is uncommon in the Netherlands (there are paths designated as horseback route, but they are not limited to horses and pedestrians) I would tag such a way as track in the Netherlands. A track does not ban any specific traffic, that would have to be put in tags. Maarten On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Someoneelse li...@mail.atownsend.org.ukwrote: Richard Mann wrote: Only the British use bridleway. The Dutch have markedly few footways (which probably indicates cycleway is being used quite loosely). My recollection of both urban and rural bits of the Netherlands is that there actually are fewer footways than cycleways - I've had a look at the map of a couple of bits that I'm familiar with (Maarssen, Scherpenzeel and the German border near Enschede FWIW) and (with a couple of exceptions) what's mapped matches pretty much I'd expect to be if the same feature were mapped in the UK. My experience of the Netherlands, Germany and Scandinavia is that it's the UK that's the odd one out in having fewer cycleways than the norm for northwestern Europe. Obviously this has no bearing on whether a particular route in Oxford should be labelled as a bridleway or a cycleway (I've never been there and can't comment). Maybe arrange a meeting in a local pub and have a show of hands? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ 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] highway=cyclefootway
Richard Mann wrote: Map Features says that highway=cycleway should be used for ways that are mainly/exclusively for bicycles. Map Features is wrong. :) IIRC some divvy inserted this sentence a good while after people had got accustomed to using highway=cycleway for shared-use paths. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-highway%3Dcycle-footway-tp22661251p22740967.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Richard Mann wrote: Map Features says that highway=cycleway should be used for ways that are mainly/exclusively for bicycles. Map Features is wrong. :) So you're saying that highway=cycleway is not intended for ways which are for bicycles? What an ... interesting interpretation! -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
So you're saying that highway=cycleway is not intended for ways which are for bicycles? What an ... interesting interpretation! I think mainly/exclusively may overstress the exclusively bit. I think generally if a bicycle and a pedestrian can use a way, but cars can't then highway=cycleway (foot=yes, bicycle=yes) is a better choice than highway=footway (foot=yes, bicycle=yes). As has been said, pedestrians can also walk on most roads in the UK, yet we don't tag those highway=footway (foot=yes, motorcar=yes). I see highway=path as a handy shortcut like highway=road for tagging something until a 'proper' tag can be assigned, though I realise not everyone will agree... Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Ed Loach wrote: So you're saying that highway=cycleway is not intended for ways which are for bicycles? What an ... interesting interpretation! I think mainly/exclusively may overstress the exclusively bit. In a few jurisdictions and a few cases, they're exclusive; in most jurisdictions some other traffic may use it. Hence mainly (most jurisdictions) or exclusively (a few jurisdictions). I see highway=path as a handy shortcut like highway=road for tagging something until a 'proper' tag can be assigned, though I realise not everyone will agree... Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/8/84/Designatedsigns.jpeg is an example I keep coming back to for this kind of thing. It's quite clearly not a cycleway, a footway, or a bridleway. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
I see highway=path as a handy shortcut like highway=road for tagging something until a 'proper' tag can be assigned, though I realise not everyone will agree... Yeah, I find highway=path a good permanent shortcut for highway=cycleway+foot=yes+bicycle=yes without having to guess if highway=footway isn't more clever because BOTH are to go on that... path -- sly Sylvain Letuffe li...@letuffe.org qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: So you're saying that highway=cycleway is not intended for ways which are for bicycles? What an ... interesting interpretation! I think mainly/exclusively may overstress the exclusively bit. I think generally if a bicycle and a pedestrian can use a way, but cars can't then highway=cycleway (foot=yes, bicycle=yes) is a better choice than highway=footway (foot=yes, bicycle=yes). As has been said, pedestrians can also walk on most roads in the UK, yet we don't tag those highway=footway (foot=yes, motorcar=yes). I see highway=path as a handy shortcut like highway=road for tagging something until a 'proper' tag can be assigned, though I realise not everyone will agree... Ed This may be a UK/Europe vs. rebel colonies thing, too, because in the US, we don't generally have such prominently defined access rules for paths. Certainly a system of color-coded signs and markings are not common here. More likely neighborhood paths are geared toward casual recreational usage (for walking dogs, etc, more than for bike commuting). So, the values used (footway, bridleway, cycleway) have generally well-defined meanings in the UK, but leaves those of us in the US a bit baffled. That's why highway=path makes a lot of sense for us when it's a multi-use path, not predominantly for any mode of transport. If it is primarily for a given mode of transport, designated= can fill that gap. Otherwise, the access keys can cover any posted permissions for different modes of transport. Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Oh, good grief. While *that*'s all happening downthread, perhaps the people who've actually been out mapping the area that's sparked off this storm of nonsense can come to some form of rough consensus and useful maps (to paraphrase). I'll start. Richard Mann wrote: Why do I think highway=bridleway+surface=something is inadequate to tag Willow Walk - because there are 16 cited values for surface (and you'd have to look at tracktype smoothness too). Whereas highway=cycleway+designation=public_bridleway does the job with the minimum of fuss. There are about 4 _applicable_ values of surface for WW given how patchy it is, so yes. A single surface field doesn't quite cut it. And the longest stretch of continuous usefulness for the way is for cycle and foot traffic. Not going near tracktype and smoothness. Ugh. So let it be a cycleway, tagged designation=public_bridleway. Surface I guess we can use the best (vehicular) value for it: paved, probably. Acceptable? (There's a similar situation where I've been mapping recently too: a road for access to a mobile home park and a farm that you'd think on first looking at it was a fairly concrete service/driveway. Signs say bridleway; and indeed if you follow it through it turns off into a more conventional thin, muddy, hoof-churned pathway for horses. So two stretches, one tagged h=service;designation=public_bridleway, the other tagged as a regular h=bridleway.) -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Andrew Chadwick wrote: So let it be a cycleway, tagged designation=public_bridleway. Surface I guess we can use the best (vehicular) value for it: paved, probably. Acceptable? *applauds* cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-highway%3Dcycle-footway-tp22661251p22745024.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Alex Mauer wrote: Richard Fairhurst wrote: Map Features says that highway=cycleway should be used for ways that are mainly/exclusively for bicycles. Map Features is wrong. :) So you're saying that highway=cycleway is not intended for ways which are for bicycles? Thanks for putting words into my mouth. Clearly I'm not. You went too far in your change, A path on which bicycle access is permitted. What makes a way a cycleway, other than being mainly for bicycles? mainly/exclusively is the difference. Access permissions cascade down[1]. Down from what, to what? What's the hierarchy? As far as I can interpret this, you mean that access always defaults to yes *except on motorways -- Is this correct? So why on earth you think that highway=cycleway;foot=yes is still required, I have no idea. Unless, of course, you do actually go around tagging highway=secondary;motorcar=yes;foot=yes etc. etc., in which case full marks for consistency albeit no marks for clue. Well, either you're tagging foot=yes+horse=yes+ski=yes+moped=yes+snowmobile=yes on a large subset of paths, or you're tagging foot=no+horse=no+ski=no+moped=no+snowmobile=no on a large subset of paths. I find that most paths have a list of what is allowed to use them, so between a bunch of yes values and a bunch of no values, yes makes more sense IMO. Roads are not the same, they should be default access yes. But at least around here, paths -- including those for bicycles, horse, or foot -- should be default no But, you know, well done on finally uploading some GPS tracks in the last few weeks (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Hawke/traces). Maybe actually doing some mapping will give your opinions some weight, rather than just being another tedious wikignome. We live in hope. For what it's worth, I've had my city essentially complete[1] for about 2 years, and created my own render of the local paths and truck routes[2]. So I hope that my opinions carry at least some weight, and I'll thank you not to insult my contributions. 1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/b/b3/Hawke_northwestportage.png 2. http://web.hawkesnest.net/osm.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 04:21:47PM +0100, sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote: Yeah, I find highway=path a good permanent shortcut for highway=cycleway+foot=yes+bicycle=yes without having to guess if highway=footway isn't more clever because BOTH are to go on that... path Maybe we should just call everything a “way”? Oh. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
We all contribute in our own way. For instance I found 1467 instances of snowmobile=no in Germany in tagwatch. It isn't clear whether each of those had the proper No Snowmobiles sign (the wiki seems to be a bit vague on the criteria) :) Richard (West Oxford) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Richard Mann wrote: We all contribute in our own way. For instance I found 1467 instances of snowmobile=no in Germany in tagwatch. It isn't clear whether each of those had the proper No Snowmobiles sign (the wiki seems to be a bit vague on the criteria) :) Even aside from signs it's hard to say whether this is correct or not. Maybe snowmobiles are always illegal on some type of route in Germany -- is it then incorrect to tag it with snowmobile=no? I'd say not. In fact, it might be most correct to put snowmobile=no on nearly every road in Germany...I know this is true in Wisconsin. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
OK, so while we're talking about this, there are a number of paths near me. Nice smooth concrete, about 2m wide. They run through parks, and there are signs on the park as a whole that say No motorised vehicles. These paths are marked with a sign that has a pedestrian and a bicycle, and another sign that says Cyclists give way to Pedestrians. How would you normally mark these? I've used footway, plus bicycle=yes. I don't feel right calling it a cycleway if they have to give way to other users. Just to confuse the issue, some of them also have name signs, and most of these names are Xxxx cycle trail (or similar). Even on these, though, pedestrians still have right of way. Stephen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
signage on the ground (or local knowledge)! Happy mapping! Mike Harris _ From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com] Sent: 24 March 2009 13:18 To: osm Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway Mike asked for examples of basic physical status. 1) Path - poorly-defined path (either because of low usage, or because there's no advantage in taking any particular line, or because someone's ploughed it) 2) Footway - well-defined, but not suitable for horses, due to accesses (stiles / kissing gates), and vulnerability of surface to damage from heavy animals. Most UK country footpaths fall into this category. Category also covers urban made-up ways from which cycles are specifically banned. Some are designated public footpaths. 3) Bridleway - well-defined, and usage by horses accepted, with gates for access. Surface unlikely to be made-up, and likely to be unusable by cyclists, especially in woods, and especially after rain. Routing a bike on such a way wouldn't be clever. Most UK country bridleways fall into this category, but not urban ones. 4) Cycleway - surface made up and fairly smooth. Probably no objection to horses using it occasionally, though situation likely to be unclear unless it's legally a Bridleway, or there's some horse-unfriendly gates. Possibly occasional access for farm vehicles / cars. Legal designation could be just about anything - so long as the landowner doesn't mind. Might be a case for narrow cycleways to be coded as cyclefootway, to show you will probably have to cycle differently, and to avoid claiming undue ownership/priority for cyclists. 5) Track - surface made up though may be a bit rough, and may have grass growing down the middle. Probably no formal access restrictions, though hard work for cyclists, and could well damage a normal car. Landowner may limit access. Also covers forest tracks, though surface likely to be less well made up, and prone to being impassable for some vehicles in wet conditions. Legal designation could be anything or nothing. The general point is that legal designation and physical status don't always align. Richard (not the one responsible for Potlatch) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
On 26/03/2009 09:29, Mike Harris wrote: Richard Thanks for this ... very helpful - a few comments - 1. Path: I would prefer to use highway=footway for a path that has (almost always illegally) not been reinstated across a ploughed field IF ... I think by trying to switch the interpretation of the highway=... tags from an objective recording of what the signs say to a subjective one of some personal measure of suitability you are undermining the work that's been done one the map so far. If you want to include subjective value judgements, I really think you should do that in tags invented for the purpose, not undermine the existing ones. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
David I'm not sure I understand your comment. What is avoidably subjective? The highway= tags and the foot/bicycle/horse= tags are all based on what is observable objectively on the ground - either physical or signage (supplemented sometimes by local knowledge of legal status - also objective). The only thing that I can see in my practice that could be described as subjective is my use of the tracktype= tag. This tag is listed in the wiki (which is why I use it) and I use only the values listed in the wiki, with the definitions listed in the wiki, as to track grade. This is technically partly subjective I suppose - but no more so than for anyone else using tracktype= as a tag (or - dare I say for fear of starting another war - smoothness= ). In what way do you see my use of highway= tags as being subjective? I am sticking to the definitions in the wiki - just using all of the objectively available information. I find it a little hard to be accused of undermining work done so far when I have put so much effort into surveying and mapping the off-road routes in my area - and have at every stage consulted through the mailing lists when in doubt as to tagging practice - and indeed willingly adapted my practice in the light of good advice received. There are bound to be minor differences in approach in any wiki system - all in good faith - and I am currently feeling somewhat demotivated. Perhaps that was not your intention but it is unfortunately the result ... (:) Mike -Original Message- From: David Earl [mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com] Sent: 26 March 2009 09:48 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway On 26/03/2009 09:29, Mike Harris wrote: Richard Thanks for this ... very helpful - a few comments - 1. Path: I would prefer to use highway=footway for a path that has (almost always illegally) not been reinstated across a ploughed field IF ... I think by trying to switch the interpretation of the highway=... tags from an objective recording of what the signs say to a subjective one of some personal measure of suitability you are undermining the work that's been done one the map so far. If you want to include subjective value judgements, I really think you should do that in tags invented for the purpose, not undermine the existing ones. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Before we all get too depressed, I think I agree with both of you (Dave / Mike) that any changes to tagging should be backwardly-compatible, as far as practical (or at least minimise the wrongness if the old tagging is unchanged). But we also need a scheme that is simple, effective and shows what's on the ground, not just what's on the sign. I think the nub of it is the tagging of path/bridleway/cycleway. I think path serves a useful function for ways that are more than just footways, but where usage/access for horses/mtb/bicycles is uncertain. I think bridleway serves a useful function in those countries where access for horses is well-established (and thereby is becomes a useful shorthand for highway=path+designation=public_bridleway), but in practice there may be little to distinguish a bridleway from a path (and there might be sense in rendering them quite similarly). Whereas, highway=cycleway is an explicit assertion that the surface is somewhat better than you might expect on a bridleway/path, without going into the minefield of the multiple values that might be tagged for tracktype/surface/smoothness. I think I'm concluding that highway=cyclefootway is unnecessary; perhaps highway=cycleway+cycleway=shared would be a better bet (and leave it to the renderers whether they do anything with that). But if highway=cycleway is to be used for shared cycleways, then the wiki definition will need to be more inclusive than currently. Richard (West Oxford) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
On 26/03/2009 15:35, Richard Mann wrote: Before we all get too depressed, I think I agree with both of you (Dave / Mike) that any changes to tagging should be backwardly-compatible, as far as practical (or at least minimise the wrongness if the old tagging is unchanged). But we also need a scheme that is simple, effective and shows what's on the ground, not just what's on the sign. Fine, but put it in a new tag or tags rather than changing the meaning of the existing ones from objective to subjective. A subjective judgement about surface quality doesn't make something a bridleway or a cycleway (any more than the narrowness of some Scottish roads doesn't suddenly make them not primary). Though I know you're thinking about other factors, surafce quality already has a tag for it. So if something is signed as a cycleway but really doesn't have the surface quality to support it (in your judgement), that doesn't make it not a cycleway. The original designation stuff arose where the sign contradicts the actual legal status (something signed e.g. as primary when information from the local council or whatever says no, that's not true). I know it's not always obvious and sometimes there are value judgements to be made when there is no other evidence to support something, but if the sign says bridleway, that is what it is and should be recorded as. Any data consumer should know that in that location, bridleways are legally usable by bikes and if surface is set properly, can assume it is or isn't suitable for cycling and act appropriately. If you're rendering a cycle map, you may well choose to render bridleway with a good surface in the same style as something marked cycleway. Why do you think cycleways are special in some way? primary roads are shared too - cycles, horses and usually pedestrians too can use them. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
On Thursday 26 March 2009, Richard Mann wrote: I thought a quick tagwatch of footway/path/bridleway/cycleway might be pertinent. Europe: footway 556k - cycleway 166k - path 66k - bridleway 11k Germany: footway 268k - cycleway 57k - path 45k - bridleway 1k Netherlands: footway 19k - cycleway 38k - path 1k - bridleway 0k Great Britain: footway 116k - cycleway 14k - path 2k - bridleway 8k The Dutch aren't using path at all, and the British not much. Unfortunately tagwatch doesn't seem to cover Wisconsin. Only the British use bridleway. The Dutch have markedly few footways (which probably indicates cycleway is being used quite loosely). I've often seen highway=pedestrian where footway/cycleway/path would be more appropriate in the Netherlands, some relic of the AND import. Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Richard Mann wrote: Only the British use bridleway. The Dutch have markedly few footways (which probably indicates cycleway is being used quite loosely). My recollection of both urban and rural bits of the Netherlands is that there actually are fewer footways than cycleways - I've had a look at the map of a couple of bits that I'm familiar with (Maarssen, Scherpenzeel and the German border near Enschede FWIW) and (with a couple of exceptions) what's mapped matches pretty much I'd expect to be if the same feature were mapped in the UK. My experience of the Netherlands, Germany and Scandinavia is that it's the UK that's the odd one out in having fewer cycleways than the norm for northwestern Europe. Obviously this has no bearing on whether a particular route in Oxford should be labelled as a bridleway or a cycleway (I've never been there and can't comment). Maybe arrange a meeting in a local pub and have a show of hands? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
On 26/03/2009 17:14, Richard Mann wrote: highway=cycleway+designation=public_bridleway does the job with the minimum of fuss. and requires us either to change the renderers or mislead horse riders. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
I think it is perfectly obvious in the UK, it's a cycleway if it has the blue cycle sign indicating that a surface is permitted for cycling when it otherwise not be. My highway code defines that sign with a round background as Route to be used by pedal cycles only - so I'd have thought highway=cycleway, foot=no. The rectangular background version Recommended route for pedal cycles is a little less clear, though I'd probably also use highway=cycleway depending what else the route was like. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
In order better to understand your point of view could you explain - perhaps with an example or two - what you mean by the basic physical status of a path/road. In my innocence, highway=path does this (but I like this tag as little as you do as it is so ill-defined); so does highway=track (but in this group I have found widely different understandings of what 'track' means); but highway=cycleway - imho - does not describe 'basic physical status' but rather 'intended use' (after all a cyclist could ride along a mountain path, a farm track or a paved and dedicated cycleway). I do increasingly tend to agree with you, however, on the use of designation= (not actually a new tag but one that has to date not been much used it seems - I am just starting to use it myself in the way you describe). I would really like better to understand what you are suggesting here. Mike Harris _ From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 18:14 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway Tagging is there to allow people who haven't been there to figure out what is there. highway=path just exports the problem to other tags highway=(whatever the legal designation is) just exports the problem to other tags this just makes everything more complicated for everybody I say: highway should encode the basic physical status of the path/road a new tag, designation should encode legal status, if people want to record this access should encode topup rules to make routing software work Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Mike asked for examples of basic physical status. 1) Path - poorly-defined path (either because of low usage, or because there's no advantage in taking any particular line, or because someone's ploughed it) 2) Footway - well-defined, but not suitable for horses, due to accesses (stiles / kissing gates), and vulnerability of surface to damage from heavy animals. Most UK country footpaths fall into this category. Category also covers urban made-up ways from which cycles are specifically banned. Some are designated public footpaths. 3) Bridleway - well-defined, and usage by horses accepted, with gates for access. Surface unlikely to be made-up, and likely to be unusable by cyclists, especially in woods, and especially after rain. Routing a bike on such a way wouldn't be clever. Most UK country bridleways fall into this category, but not urban ones. 4) Cycleway - surface made up and fairly smooth. Probably no objection to horses using it occasionally, though situation likely to be unclear unless it's legally a Bridleway, or there's some horse-unfriendly gates. Possibly occasional access for farm vehicles / cars. Legal designation could be just about anything - so long as the landowner doesn't mind. Might be a case for narrow cycleways to be coded as cyclefootway, to show you will probably have to cycle differently, and to avoid claiming undue ownership/priority for cyclists. 5) Track - surface made up though may be a bit rough, and may have grass growing down the middle. Probably no formal access restrictions, though hard work for cyclists, and could well damage a normal car. Landowner may limit access. Also covers forest tracks, though surface likely to be less well made up, and prone to being impassable for some vehicles in wet conditions. Legal designation could be anything or nothing. The general point is that legal designation and physical status don't always align. Richard (not the one responsible for Potlatch) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Note that Richard's is not a definitive answer (not that this one is either). My own interpretation is: 1. path: a route, 2-4 meters wide, possibly paved, possibly with a slightly wider shoulder. Too confined or narrow for a car to navigate safely, especially if there are other people using it (no passing room at all). 2. footway: same as a path, but no provision is made for any traffic besides pedestrian. (bridges may not be strong enough to support a horse, walls/fences crossed by stiles, narrow gates, etc.) 3. bridleway: same as a path, but no provision is made for any traffic besides equestrian. 4. cycleway: same as a path, but no provision is made for any traffic except bicycles. 5. track: a road which is not graded or paved, but created by people driving along it. It might be built to the extent that trees have been removed and grass or brush cleared. At its simplest, it is just a pair of wheel ruts. Definitely intended for four-wheeled motor vehicles, though it may be risky to drive a normal car along it. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
On 23/03/2009 15:57, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Andrew Chadwick wrote: In this case, Richard's right in that it's an old bridleway still used by horses for field access. But it's also been half-surfaced nicely for bicycle use, and has blue low-flying-bicycles signs along it. And a sign saying bridleway and hoofprints. Oh, and nearby riding schools and horse mounting steps. And lots of foot traffic, plus private motor access. It's pretty much the definition of shared use in path form. Oooh, and it's the proposed NCN 57 too. (Though I expect NCN 57 might actually end up going a different way, at least at first.) Clearly the fact that it's officially a bridleway is worth recording, because it implies all sorts of useful legal permissions and stuff. Yet clearly most users will actually use it as a cycleway, because there are more bikes in Oxford than horses. So three roughly equivalent suggestions: 1. highway=bridleway, surface=paved 2. highway=cycleway, designation=bridleway 3. create two parallel ways: tag one of them as above, and the other as highway=bridleway, surface=something_that_implies_mud. Potlatch can do this for you with its parallel way feature (Other Editors Are Available). If/when it is signed as NCN57, then it will have a cycleway sign as evidence on the ground. In the meantime it quacks like a bridleway, so surely it ought to be one. The problem marking it as cycleway now is that in the UK road bridleway cycleway footway loosely speaking. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, cycles can use bridleways, but horses can't use cycleways. Neither cycles nor horses can use footways. Everyone can use roads (again unless otherwise indicated). David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
David Earl wrote: The problem marking it as cycleway now is that in the UK road bridleway cycleway footway loosely speaking. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, cycles can use bridleways, but horses can't use cycleways. Sort of. There are actually two fairly important exceptions to the bridleway cycleway rule (this is getting a bit UK rights-of-way geeky, sorry everyone). A bridleway is available to cyclists but there is no obligation on the land-owner to maintain it for cyclists. Cyclists are also required to give way to other users. http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4678 http://www.sustrans.org.uk/webfiles/Info%20sheets/ff27.pdf A cycle track, however (as declared by a Cycle Tracks Order) confers an obligation on the local highway authority to maintain it for cyclists. As best as I can see, there is no formally expressed priority of use. So in this case cycleway actually bridleway. This is kind of what I like about the designation= tag. The Oxford example is maintained by the local highway authority as a cycleway. So it quacks like a cycleway, looks like a cycleway, but is legally a... bridleway. highway=cycleway, designation=bridleway sums this up concisely. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
David Earl wrote: On 23/03/2009 15:57, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Andrew Chadwick wrote: But it [...] has blue low-flying-bicycles signs If/when it is signed as NCN57, then it will have a cycleway sign as evidence on the ground. In the meantime it quacks like a bridleway, so surely it ought to be one. It quacks like^W^W is signposted as both. Just to be awkward, as far as I can tell. I like the sound of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation , but I'd also like to see it mature a little first and offer some really concrete guidelines for usage. The problem marking it as cycleway now is that in the UK road bridleway cycleway footway loosely speaking. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, cycles can use bridleways, but horses can't use cycleways. Neither cycles nor horses can use footways. Everyone can use roads (again unless otherwise indicated). Somebody should really do a printable decision tree or flowchart for this, taking in all usable sources (including OOC maps, what's on the ground and what's signposted, local_knowledge...) Common sense only gets you so far, given that two different people can apply it and come up with two completely different perfectly sensible sets of tags for an object :) -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
I support David's reply - so far as England and Wales is concerned. A bridleway is a legally defined way that should be so signed on the ground (by law where it joins or intersects a motor road). Cyclists are allowed to use bridleways (except where explicitly forbidden by a local ordinance - a rarity). There is no formal definition of a cycleway but the word seems to have (at least) three meanings: (a) a dedicated way for cyclists alongside a motor road and so signed on the ground, (b) a dedicated way for cyclists - often alongside a way for pedestrians or sometimes shared with them - usually paved and in urban areas - and so signed on the ground, (c) a medium- to long-distance route for cyclists designated by the charity SusTrans and often using other ways, e.g. quiet motor roads, bridleways, towpaths, etc. but rarely (if ever?) designated only for cyclists. Where there is any doubt from signage on the ground I would use highway=footpath, =bridleway, =byway as recognisable designations and add foot=yes, bicycle=yes, etc. The recent trend also to use a designated= tag (as discussed about a month ago in this list) is helpful as regards legal status drawn from any non-copyright database. The existing tags surface= are helpful to describe condition of the surface and thus suitability for e.g. cyclists. Other options in wide use are tracktype= and (I'm not getting into this one!) smoothness= (;). Mike Harris -Original Message- From: David Earl [mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 14:26 To: osm Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway On 23/03/2009 14:18, Richard Mann wrote: OK. So I get fed up because one of these OSM types insists on retagging something that I think is a cycleway as a bridleway just because it's got a sign. I don't have time to have an edit war I get so fed up I'm close to giving up on OSM entirely, but decide to have one last stab at making sense of it. So I float a proposal on talk-gb, for highway to be physical (which means it must distinguish all major path classes, so I propose highway=cyclefootway to plug what to me is a big gap), designation to cover the law, and access to cover routing. So rather than make an off-hand comment on a different list under a different subject, why not just say I like, I don't like, I don't care or but... or something vaguely helpful?? If it says bridleway, then surely it is a bridleway, since these tags are informed by evidence on the ground, not a statutory database of legal rights. How do you _know_ it is a cycleway if the sign says otherwise? If you're a horse rider, you might well be just a peeved the other way by you changing their bridleway to a cycleway. In the UK bridleways are legally accessible by cyclists, so if you're trying to use this in a context of cycling, why not just recognise bridleway as something you can cycle on, or change the access tags to make this clear. You could also set the surface tag to indicate that it is a paved surface and thereofre better suited to cycling than most bridleways (if it is, of course). If you're just worried that mapnik *shows* it as a bridleway, then surely Mapnik is right to do so in this case if that's what the sign says. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
I agree with Richard and also note his careful and correct use of the term cycle track (which is defined) rather than cycleway (which is used much more widely and is not defined). Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net] Sent: 23 March 2009 16:40 To: David Earl Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway David Earl wrote: The problem marking it as cycleway now is that in the UK road bridleway cycleway footway loosely speaking. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, cycles can use bridleways, but horses can't use cycleways. Sort of. There are actually two fairly important exceptions to the bridleway cycleway rule (this is getting a bit UK rights-of-way geeky, sorry everyone). A bridleway is available to cyclists but there is no obligation on the land-owner to maintain it for cyclists. Cyclists are also required to give way to other users. http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4678 http://www.sustrans.org.uk/webfiles/Info%20sheets/ff27.pdf A cycle track, however (as declared by a Cycle Tracks Order) confers an obligation on the local highway authority to maintain it for cyclists. As best as I can see, there is no formally expressed priority of use. So in this case cycleway actually bridleway. This is kind of what I like about the designation= tag. The Oxford example is maintained by the local highway authority as a cycleway. So it quacks like a cycleway, looks like a cycleway, but is legally a... bridleway. highway=cycleway, designation=bridleway sums this up concisely. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
I would tend to use Highway=bridleway (because that is what it is and bridleway is a clearly defined term and cycleway is - usually - not) Then define access with Foot=yes Bicycle=yes Horse=yes Define legal status Designation=public_bridleway Define surface Surface=paved and/or tracktype=grade1 The consider whether it forms part of a recognised route (in this case, apparently and potentially, NCN 57) and use a route relationship for this to carry the indicator NCN 57 across the length of the route which will almost certainly include different types of way, thus Relation: Type=route Route=bicycle Network=ncn Reference=57 And similarly if it forms part of a long-distance footpath or equestrian route - using further relations. In most cases, not all of these tags will be necessary but more data is better than less! Btw - I think parallel ways can get very messy and the only case I have found - so far - where they are pretty much unavoidable (because of the vast difference in the type of way) is for a towpath alongside a canal. In this case the absence of two separate parallel ways makes further tagging very difficult (I don't' want to tag a canal as a public footpath and not all towpaths are public footpaths) and also disallows the crucial indication of whether or not the towpath connects on foot with a bridge crossing the canal. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net] Sent: 23 March 2009 15:57 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway Andrew Chadwick wrote: In this case, Richard's right in that it's an old bridleway still used by horses for field access. But it's also been half-surfaced nicely for bicycle use, and has blue low-flying-bicycles signs along it. And a sign saying bridleway and hoofprints. Oh, and nearby riding schools and horse mounting steps. And lots of foot traffic, plus private motor access. It's pretty much the definition of shared use in path form. Oooh, and it's the proposed NCN 57 too. (Though I expect NCN 57 might actually end up going a different way, at least at first.) Clearly the fact that it's officially a bridleway is worth recording, because it implies all sorts of useful legal permissions and stuff. Yet clearly most users will actually use it as a cycleway, because there are more bikes in Oxford than horses. So three roughly equivalent suggestions: 1. highway=bridleway, surface=paved 2. highway=cycleway, designation=bridleway 3. create two parallel ways: tag one of them as above, and the other as highway=bridleway, surface=something_that_implies_mud. Potlatch can do this for you with its parallel way feature (Other Editors Are Available). cheers another cycling Richard from Oxfordshire -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-highway%3Dcycle-footway-tp22661251p22663109.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
On 23/03/2009 19:41, Mike Harris wrote: I agree with Richard and also note his careful and correct use of the term cycle track (which is defined) rather than cycleway (which is used much more widely and is not defined). Cycle track is indeed a defined term in the UK. But there are almost none of them. Hardly any modern (where modern != good in most cases!) cycle facility is a cycle track as defined. They are almost always shared with pedestrians, either with a dividing line or just free for all. For example, despite the number of cycle facilities in Cambridge, there is only one true cycle track (any other Cambridge people know which it is?). From what I have seen of Oxford, I think the same is true there. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
