Re: [talk-au] Path discussion tagging guidelines
That makes sense, Andrew, but note that some issue reporting systems in editors might flag that as a tagging mistake that needs fixing. I believe one of the tools in iD will recommend removing what it considers to be unnecessarily duplicated information. Just a heads up, not a criticism :) Stéphane Guillou > On 13 Oct 2021, at 19:33, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > > > >> On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 20:03, wrote: >> The only other difference was a general ambivalence on how shared paths are >> tagged. The wiki says highway=cycleway & foot=designated, people here were >> also happy with highway=footway & bicycle=designated. Two sides of the same >> coin I guess, and depends on which camp you're in. >> >> >> >> Personally, I use both of these for shared paths depending if I consider >> them more or less suitable for cycling (primarily based on width). >> >> highway=cycleway >> foot=designated >> segregated=no >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> highway=footway >> bicycle=designated >> segregated=no >> >> >> >> both adequately describe a shared path IMO, but I would expect a “cycleway” >> to be wider and generally more suitable for cycling than a footway. They do >> render differently, and I would expect a bicycle router to give shared path >> cycleways some preference over shared path footways. >> > > Same here. My rule of thumb is when it's a footpath (ie. footway=sidewalk, > it's running along the edge of a street) shared path I'd use highway=footway, > and when it's not a footpath (not footway=sidewalk) then highway=cycleway. > But I wouldn't say that's applied widely in OSM data. > > But because highway=cycleway and highway=footway are a bit interchangeable > for shared paths I'll also add both foot=designated and bicycle=designated so > that if the highway tag is changed at least both access are clear. > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Path discussion tagging guidelines
On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 20:03, wrote: > The only other difference was a general ambivalence on how shared paths > are tagged. The wiki says highway=cycleway & foot=designated, people here > were also happy with highway=footway & bicycle=designated. Two sides of the > same coin I guess, and depends on which camp you're in. > > > > Personally, I use both of these for shared paths depending if I consider > them more or less suitable for cycling (primarily based on width). > > highway=cycleway > foot=designated > segregated=no > > > > and > > > > highway=footway > bicycle=designated > segregated=no > > > > both adequately describe a shared path IMO, but I would expect a > “cycleway” to be wider and generally more suitable for cycling than a > footway. They do render differently, and I would expect a bicycle router to > give shared path cycleways some preference over shared path footways. > Same here. My rule of thumb is when it's a footpath (ie. footway=sidewalk, it's running along the edge of a street) shared path I'd use highway=footway, and when it's not a footpath (not footway=sidewalk) then highway=cycleway. But I wouldn't say that's applied widely in OSM data. But because highway=cycleway and highway=footway are a bit interchangeable for shared paths I'll also add both foot=designated and bicycle=designated so that if the highway tag is changed at least both access are clear. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Path discussion tagging guidelines
The only other difference was a general ambivalence on how shared paths are tagged. The wiki says highway=cycleway & foot=designated, people here were also happy with highway=footway & bicycle=designated. Two sides of the same coin I guess, and depends on which camp you're in. Personally, I use both of these for shared paths depending if I consider them more or less suitable for cycling (primarily based on width). highway=cycleway foot=designated segregated=no and highway=footway bicycle=designated segregated=no both adequately describe a shared path IMO, but I would expect a “cycleway” to be wider and generally more suitable for cycling than a footway. They do render differently, and I would expect a bicycle router to give shared path cycleways some preference over shared path footways. From: Adam Horan Sent: Wednesday, 13 October 2021 17:05 To: Brendan Barnes Cc: talk-au Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path discussion tagging guidelines I'd say it does, except I think there was a desire not to universally tag bicycle=yes/no on footway, given it's broadly redundant information. This should be derived from tags applied at a State level. But retaining bicycle=no if there was an explicit sign forbidding cycling. The only other difference was a general ambivalence on how shared paths are tagged. The wiki says highway=cycleway & foot=designated, people here were also happy with highway=footway & bicycle=designated. Two sides of the same coin I guess, and depends on which camp you're in. Adam On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 17:49, Brendan Barnes mailto:brenbar...@gmail.com> > wrote: Hi all, There's been great discussion over the past few weeks about cycling and/or footpath tagging. Personally, it's been hard to keep up with all the messages. Does the tagging guidelines wiki reflect a summary of what has recently been discussed? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Urban_Footpaths_and_Cycleways Thanks. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Path discussion tagging guidelines
I'd say it does, except I think there was a desire not to universally tag bicycle=yes/no on footway, given it's broadly redundant information. This should be derived from tags applied at a State level. But retaining bicycle=no if there was an explicit sign forbidding cycling. The only other difference was a general ambivalence on how shared paths are tagged. The wiki says highway=cycleway & foot=designated, people here were also happy with highway=footway & bicycle=designated. Two sides of the same coin I guess, and depends on which camp you're in. Adam On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 17:49, Brendan Barnes wrote: > Hi all, > > There's been great discussion over the past few weeks about cycling and/or > footpath tagging. Personally, it's been hard to keep up with all the > messages. > > Does the tagging guidelines wiki reflect a summary of what has recently > been discussed? > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Urban_Footpaths_and_Cycleways > > Thanks. > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Path discussion tagging guidelines
Hi all, There's been great discussion over the past few weeks about cycling and/or footpath tagging. Personally, it's been hard to keep up with all the messages. Does the tagging guidelines wiki reflect a summary of what has recently been discussed? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Urban_Footpaths_and_Cycleways Thanks. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
