Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Are you proposing tagging all ways with a parallel cycleway with bicycle=use_cycleway? Sounds like it's made for mechanical edit abuse. But if you are saying that there are roads marked with bicycle=no which really do not have such a sign, then that's different. On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com wrote: Together with user Masimaster I've made a proposal for a new tag to improve bicycle routing. I think (and hope) the wiki is clear enough but I’ll say a few words about this new tag. The tag is introduced to separate 2 kinds of roads where you are not supposed to ride your bike. The first is a road with a traffic sign (bicycle icon with red edge) that makes clear it is forbidden to ride a bicycle . (common tag: bicycle=no) The second is a road that has a parallel compulsory cycleway but does not have the bicycle forbidden sign. On this type of road you’re not supposed to ride your bike but there are exeptions. Legally these 2 roads are not the same. For example.. in NL some 3 wheel bicycles with certain measurements are allowed to ride the second type of road. In other countries there is also a legal difference. For this reason we propose this new tag. Cheers PeeWee32 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
On 12 November 2013 18:16, Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com wrote: Together with user Masimaster I've made a proposal for a new tag to improve bicycle routing. I think (and hope) the wiki is clear enough but I’ll say a few words about this new tag. The tag is introduced to separate 2 kinds of roads where you are not supposed to ride your bike. I'm afraid I'm not convinced by the proposal at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle_use_cycleway . First of all, the proposal is not clear on exactly when this tag is to be applied, in some places you say it's to be used when there is a parallel compulsory cycleway, and elsewhere it says official. Then use of allowed / wise also introduces ambiguity as to whether the tag is intended only for routes where most cycling is banned on the road, or just when cyclists would generally choose not to. This needs to be clarified. (In the UK for example, we often have cycle tracks running parallel to the road. There is also an official government document called the Highway Code, which includes the clause for cyclists: Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer. It's not entirely clear from your proposal whether or not the proposal means all UK roads with parallel cycle routes should be tagged with bicycle=use_cycleway. I would presume not, but I think the proposal as written is open to interpretation.) Secondly, you mention the case of special types of bicycle eg tricycles. I would argue that if such vehicles routinely have a different legal status with respect to access rights in a particular country, then they should be given a more specific access tag key to over-ride any access tags set for bicycle. This is how we handle other access issues where certain types of vehicle are an exception. (For example, on a service road only open to buses and taxis, we would set vehicle=no, psv=yes. Here we should use something like bicycle=no, special-type-of-bicycle=yes.) Finally, I think that it is not a good idea to introduce an access tag value where the precise effect is going to vary by country and have different meanings to different people. IMO the access tags should be used to express absolute states as well as possible, rather than being subject to different interpretations in different places. Routers etc shouldn't need to know about different national laws and conventions to interpret the main tag. (This is why, for example, we tag national speed limits with a numerical maxspeed=* tag, and then provide a supplementary maxspeed:type=* tag to explain how that numerical value is derived. Or why in the UK, we tag access rights such as foot=yes in addition to the legal origin of those rights e.g. designation=public_footpath.) So I would suggest that on any roads where cycling is generally disallowed, we continue to use bicycle=no as the standard tagging. If certain sub-types of bicycle are allowed, then an additional access tag can be added to override bicycle=no for those cases. To express the legal origin of the restriction, and provide the information to routers that want it, I'd suggest adding tag along the lines of bicycle:restriction_type=DE:use_cycleway where the value comes from a country code and a table of values that list the various legal statuses that may exist in each country. This has the advantages of (a) using a backwards compatible bicycle=* value (b) allowing users/routers that don’t want to be bothered with the details of different restrictions to give a reasonable result that will be right in most cases, (c) providing a standard way to record the precise legal status of the route, (d) allowing routers that do want to be bothered with the details to implement them on a country- and law-specific basis. None of these advantages are present in the original proposal. If there are cases where it is less clear cut that cycling is generally forbidden, then maybe a more generic tag of bicycle=restricted might be better as the main tag, again in conjunction with a separate tag to identify the precise restriction that applies. (Yes this will mean the main bicycle=* tag needs to be interpreted by routers, but at least it gives them a single generic tag for you probably can't cycle here, but you need to check for details which they can use to warn end-users if the router doesn't want to work out the precise details themselves.) Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
2013/11/13 Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com Are you proposing tagging all ways with a parallel cycleway with bicycle=use_cycleway? Sounds like it's made for mechanical edit abuse. yes, that probably should be done, because there are no other established ways of doing it, beside the wrong bicycle=no on the road that some mappers decided to set. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
There are very many roads (in NL at least) marked with bicycle=no with no explicit sign. It is implicit in the fact that a parallel cycle track is marked as compulsory (blue round sign). IMHO the definition of this sign (in law) is totally screwed. It is also used for cycle tracks which are nowhere near roads. It seems to mean that I am obliged to use that cycle track even if it is going in the wrong direction for me... so it becomes rather subjective in many cases as to how mandatory it really is. It is usually regarded as applying where the main carriageway and the cycle track are the same road. If they are parallel and not too far apart (how far is this?) that's almost trivial to determine, compared to some of the incredibly complex cycle track layouts around junctions. The law in NL says that cycles wider than 75cm are not bound by the obligation to follow the mandatory cycle track and are allowed on the main carriageway; this includes trikes and some trailers (e.g. for carrying windsurfers). So why not tag the main road to reflect the width limit? bicycle:minwidth=0.75? Colin On 2013-11-13 10:10, Erik Johansson wrote: Are you proposing tagging all ways with a parallel cycleway with bicycle=use_cycleway? Sounds like it's made for mechanical edit abuse. But if you are saying that there are roads marked with bicycle=no which really do not have such a sign, then that's different. On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com wrote: Together with user Masimaster I've made a proposal for a new tag to improve bicycle routing. I think (and hope) the wiki is clear enough but I'll say a few words about this new tag. The tag is introduced to separate 2 kinds of roads where you are not supposed to ride your bike. The first is a road with a traffic sign (bicycle icon with red edge) that makes clear it is forbidden to ride a bicycle . (common tag: bicycle=no) The second is a road that has a parallel compulsory cycleway but does not have the bicycle forbidden sign. On this type of road you're not supposed to ride your bike but there are exeptions. Legally these 2 roads are not the same. For example.. in NL some 3 wheel bicycles with certain measurements are allowed to ride the second type of road. In other countries there is also a legal difference. For this reason we propose this new tag. Cheers PeeWee32 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
2013/11/13 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl The law in NL says that cycles wider than 75cm are not bound by the obligation to follow the mandatory cycle track and are allowed on the main carriageway; this includes trikes and some trailers (e.g. for carrying windsurfers). So why not tag the main road to reflect the width limit? bicycle:minwidth=0.75? that might fit for the NL, but in Germany the rules are different and more vague: you must use the cycleway if it runs along a road and is usable and is going where you are going and you are not encumbering other cyclists (i.e. big trailer). This is different from a bicycle=no on the road, there is no explicit minwidth but special conditions (like ice and snow or litter on the cycleway) might also allow you to use the road. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
In the UK there is no obligation to use a parallel cycleway, in fact I know if roads with both parallel cycleways and cyclelanes. Cycleways tend to force the cyclist to give way at ever road junction, whereas a cyclist using the road has right of way, and this is obviously preferred by many cyclists. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 13/11/2013 10:37 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/11/13 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl The law in NL says that cycles wider than 75cm are not bound by the obligation to follow the mandatory cycle track and are allowed on the main carriageway; this includes trikes and some trailers (e.g. for carrying windsurfers). So why not tag the main road to reflect the width limit? bicycle:minwidth=0.75? that might fit for the NL, but in Germany the rules are different and more vague: you must use the cycleway if it runs along a road and is usable and is going where you are going and you are not encumbering other cyclists (i.e. big trailer). This is different from a bicycle=no on the road, there is no explicit minwidth but special conditions (like ice and snow or litter on the cycleway) might also allow you to use the road. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Thanks all for your comments. I understand most of the comments made here. Most of them were discussed on the German forumhttp://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=21938(in English) and the Dutch forum http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=22151(in Dutch). I should have directed you to these links in the first place instead of just making a reference at the bottom of the Wiki. Sorry for that. I’ll get back to the most important issues/ suggestions/ approaches. Roberts remark about the word “official” is correct. I should have written “compulsory” instead. That is changed. Sorry for the confusion. I’ll add a bit more context to this proposal. The main goal is to improve routing for ordinary bikes but also for other vehicles. In NL (where I live) there is a great cycling OSM community and we have many cycleways. Routing for bicycles was not very good some years ago but when mappers started adding bicycle=no to both type1 and typ2 roads routing improved a lot. In fact I think it is almost perfect. Because I was facing poor bicycle routing in Germany I thought it would be good if German mappers would also add the bicycle=no to both type1 and type2 roads. As you can read in the linkedthreadhttp://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=21938to the German forum there were many that were not convinced that was a good idea (to put it mildly ;-) ). They convinced me. That was the reason I proposed a new tag in the NL forum. I think in general in the NL forum most understood why there should be a new tag but… the consequence of that would be that many roads with bicycle=no had to be retagged. Someone suggested that I should try and see if the German mappers would adopt this new tag. That was the reason I teamed up with German mapper Masimaster to propose the new tag. I think most mappers agree that it is not wise to just add a bicycle=no to a road that has no explicit ban for bicycles. The question is how to tag this road when there is a parallel compulsory cycleway? Instead of this bicycle=use_cycleway we could use bicycle=no an additionally a “my special vehicle/situation=yes”. There are a few reasons why I do not think this is a good idea. 1 Mapper are no legal experts In OSM we rely on mappers and not legal experts. An ordinary mapper in NL (where I live) does not know what the legal status is of many extraordinary vehicles and there are many. I have a 3 wheel velomobile with such measurements that I am allowed to ride these type 2 roads (but not the typ1). Hardly anyone I speak knows this. I’m also sure they don’t know the legal status of horse carriages, skateboards, sedgeways etc. The problem is that there are no traffic signs for all these exceptional vehicles so how should a mapper know? 2 too many tags Imagine that all special vehicles and situations would be tagged. How would we see all these tags in the editor. I’m afraid it would be a complete mess in OSM. Simply to many tags so we loose overview which might scare mappers away. 3 Changing law needs changing tags Imagine that in NL law would change in such a way that groups of race-cyclist of more then 10 are allowed to use the type2 way. Then this would have to be mapped. Who is going to do this? If we would have the bicycle=use_cycleway nothing had to be changed. I think we have to be carefull with mapping legal access in OSM unless the traffic signs are obvious. In fact I think that if we map in such a way that we (and routers) know what traffic sings are present, routing for any vehicle should be fairly easy. 4 country specific All the exceptional vehicles and situations vary from country to country. Imagine tags like “three wheel bicycle wider then .75m=yes” in NL and “three wheel bicycle with combuston engine 250Watt=yes” in an other coutry. This is just going to be too much for most mappers. I would not start mapping these exceptions abroad because I just don’t know all legal aspects. In short: Mapping this way will never happen in such an extend that it will improve routing for bicycles (both ordinary and exceptional ones) . So all this made me feel it was an illusion to improve bicycle routing by adding different tags for all these exceptional vehicles/situations. This could work in theory but it simply will never work in practice So, it had to be as simple a possible. Something any mapper could see in reality based on traffic signs and roads and cycleways. That’s the reason why we have added a definition of the tag. Bicycle=use_cycleway means: This is a road with a classification that allows cyclinghttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Germany *without* a bicycle forbidden sign *with* a parallel compulsary cycleway on which you are supposed to ride your ordinary bicycle. I hope this gives more context and explains why we’ve come up with this tag. Cheers PeeWee 2013/11/13 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk In the UK there is no
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Am 13.11.2013, 10:28 Uhr, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2013/11/13 Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com Are you proposing tagging all ways with a parallel cycleway with bicycle=use_cycleway? Sounds like it's made for mechanical edit abuse. yes, that probably should be done, because there are no other established ways of doing it, beside the wrong bicycle=no on the road that some mappers decided to set. We talk about the correct tagging here. Not about a mechanical edit, it could be a question in the future. But mechanical edit will not work in this case. How do you select the roads with a compulsory cycleway, or roads with the bicycle-forbidden-sign. That's the problem of tagging different things with the same tag! :( -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
On 13 November 2013 09:20, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: Secondly, you mention the case of special types of bicycle eg tricycles. I would argue that if such vehicles routinely have a different legal status with respect to access rights in a particular country, then they should be given a more specific access tag key to over-ride any access tags set for bicycle. This is how we handle other access issues where certain types of vehicle are an exception. (For example, on a service road only open to buses and taxis, we would set vehicle=no, psv=yes. Here we should use something like bicycle=no, special-type-of-bicycle=yes.) Finally, I think that it is not a good idea to introduce an access tag value where the precise effect is going to vary by country and have different meanings to different people. IMO the access tags should be used to express absolute states as well as possible, rather than being subject to different interpretations in different places. Routers etc shouldn't need to know about different national laws and conventions to interpret the main tag. (This is why, for example, we tag national speed limits with a numerical maxspeed=* tag, and then provide a supplementary maxspeed:type=* tag to explain how that numerical value is derived. Or why in the UK, we tag access rights such as foot=yes in addition to the legal origin of those rights e.g. designation=public_footpath.) I'm not sure though if this is the best approach in the long run. In the Netherlands, segways, rollerblades, and skateboards are allowed on bike paths. In Austria, segways and rollerblades are allowed on bike paths, but skateboards are not. In Germany, segways are allowed on bike paths, but rollerblades and skateboards are not. Do we really want to tag every German path where there is a bicycle sign with segway=yes, rollerblade=no, skateboard=no? And possible a much longer list of vehicles that are treated as pedestrians under one legislation but as bikes somewhere else? Also, if the law changes, for example to include or exclude Segways, we would need to change all tags, even though nothing has changed on the ground. In the long run, I think it would be good if routers will be aware of the jurisdiction a road is in, and then derive the implications of a bike=no sign for other types of vehicles. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
On 13 November 2013 23:06, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote: In the Netherlands, segways, rollerblades, and skateboards are allowed on bike paths. In Austria, segways and rollerblades are allowed on bike paths, but skateboards are not. In Germany, segways are allowed on bike paths, but rollerblades and skateboards are not. Do we really want to tag every German path where there is a bicycle sign with segway=yes, rollerblade=no, skateboard=no? And possible a much longer list of vehicles that are treated as pedestrians under one legislation but as bikes somewhere else? Also, if the law changes, for example to include or exclude Segways, we would need to change all tags, even though nothing has changed on the ground. In the long run, I think it would be good if routers will be aware of the jurisdiction a road is in, and then derive the implications of a bike=no sign for other types of vehicles. In which case,I don't think the already well-established access tags are what you should be using for this. bicycle=no means you can't ride a bicycle along here, not there's a no cycling sign that also has other implications for different classes of user. If someone (additionally or alternatively) wants to tag that a certain way has a certain (most likely) country-specific status that implies certain access restrictions on it, then it would be better to use different tags for this. This way the ordinary access tags keep their usual standard international meaning, and so can be used by routers etc that are not aware of the specific rules. If people choose not to explicitly tag segway=yes, that's fine, there will just be no explicit information about segway use on that way. If there's a different tag specifying that it's an official German Cycleway, then routers that are aware of what that means can derive all the associated access rights from that. (In the UK, we use designation=* for certain special classes of public right of way. Though many people will also add the associated access tags that implies, presumably in part because most routers aren't currently aware of how to interpret the designation tags.) In short, I don't see why you can't tag the roads you're talking about with bicycle=no (or maybe something like bicycle=restricted for the cases where more significant use is allowed) and then add a second tag along the lines of bicycle:restriction=DE:use_cycleway to capture the fact that the legal exclusion of bikes is because of X country's parallel cycleway rules. There's no need to add half-a-dozen extra access tags if you don't want to. Routers that aren't aware of the specific rules will get things right most of the time without needing any adjustment. Routers that are aware of the rules will have a specific tag to look for that allows them to apply the right rules for that stretch of road. Not only is more information captured with this scheme, if the legal implications of DE:use_cycleway change at any point, there's a convenient key to use for any automated changing / checking of the access tags that is desired. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
On 13 November 2013 23:53, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 November 2013 23:06, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote: In which case,I don't think the already well-established access tags are what you should be using for this. bicycle=no means you can't ride a bicycle along here, not there's a no cycling sign that also has other implications for different classes of user. If someone (additionally or alternatively) wants to tag that a certain way has a certain (most likely) country-specific status that implies certain access restrictions on it, then it would be better to use different tags for this. Yes, that solution would be perfectly fine with me. I just wanted to state that specifically stating all access restrictions for all types of vehicles might be tedious. In short, I don't see why you can't tag the roads you're talking about with bicycle=no (or maybe something like bicycle=restricted for the cases where more significant use is allowed) and then add a second tag along the lines of bicycle:restriction=DE:use_cycleway to capture the fact that the legal exclusion of bikes is because of X country's parallel cycleway rules. That's basically what I proposed yesterday :). -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gambling
On 11 November 2013 18:02, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 17:50 +0100, fly wrote: What I miss so far is a way to better describe what kind of gambling is possible, no weather what kind of place it is, similar to gambling=* Do we need a tag for each machines ? How do I tag a bar with some machines ? a backdoor room ? I agree that that would be useful to have, but I would prefer to leave it out of the scope of this proposal. I think it is important to first have the main type of venues right. After that we can always define new tags for slot machines in pubs, etc. The proposal is already quite big, so I think we should not increase the scope of the proposal for now. I would agree here, playing for pleasure does need to be distinguished from gambling. Gambling will imply age restrictions on entry, whereas playing video games does not. Hmm, difficult to get the difference right. How would you call a place with video games and pinball machines? What if there are also claw cranes? Are there in fact countries where there are distinct places for gambling machines and gaming machines? Perhaps game arcade is also be a useful term? For the Americans on the list: Dave and Buster's and Chucke E. Cheese are mentioned on the wiki as examples of video arcades. What kind of games do these places offer? I suppose no gambling? -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
