Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Emvee via Tagging]

On 16/10/2020 09:31, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Oct 15, 2020, 22:18 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:


This recent wiki change by Emvee
 is in my view
not helpful, or even misleading, as it does discourage a
wide-spread tagging practice (if we like this or not is a
different question, but it's established tagging, and the wiki is
supposed to describe the establsihed methods of tagging)


The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a node,
see https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265


No, you changed documented meaning of tagging scheme in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dcrossing&type=revision&diff=2043653&oldid=2025128


OSM Wiki is not describing only tagging that is supported.

Note that it is fine to describe tagging as problematic, unsupported
and having a better alternative.


Rereading what was added the text describes exactly what is problematic
namely bicycle=no in the context of routing. I did not add that context
but that is something I can do.

Adding that mapping the crossing from curb to curb as separate osm way
with the correct access tags is a better alternative is a good idea.


Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore bicycle=no
in combination with highway=crossing means that it is more or less
useless as routers are they main data consumers while at the same
time crossing data is far from being complete.

Any tagging scheme is for some period unsupported, this does not make
it useless.

If data is not used and will not be used in the foreseeable future I
call it useless.

And any widely used tagging scheme can be described. As obvious from
this discussion meaning
of this bicycle=no is clear so I will revert your edits on this page


I do not see how you came to this conclusion, but as I noted on the Talk
page I have no problem with reverting for now but think it should be
reverted further to point before bicycle=no/yes was added.

Instead of reverting you could have chosen for the changes I did point
out above.


My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and it
does not add new information as weather it is a pedestrian issue
can be deduced from the connecting ways.

Not in cases where
(1) highway=cycleway is crossing road where cyclists are obligated to
dismount
(2) highway=footway with bicycle=yes/designated is crossing road where
cyclists
are obligated to dismount

Can be covered by mapping the crossing, curb to curb as separate osm
way. A bit more effort but more precise.

(3)pedestrian only crossing is tagged on road having cycleway on both
sides
(tagged as cycleway:lef/cycleway:right/cycleway:both)
(or where such road has cycleway at one side, is joined by separately
mapped
cycleway from other side and there is crossing there, but
cyclists must dismount)


There is no need to tag this type of "solitary" crossing for routing
purposes, a router will never want to make a turn half way the road. So
these "solitary" crossings are useless in routing context while routers
do have problems with bicycle=no/dismount on a node.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Emvee via Tagging]

This recent wiki change by Emvee
 is in my view not
helpful, or even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread
tagging practice (if we like this or not is a different question,
but it's established tagging, and the wiki is supposed to describe
the establsihed methods of tagging)


The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a node,
see https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265

Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore bicycle=no in
combination with highway=crossing means that it is more or less
useless as routers are they main data consumers while at the same
time crossing data is far from being complete.

My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and it does
not add new information as weather it is a pedestrian issue can be
deduced from the connecting ways.


We still have the valid mapping practice, that sideways are mapped
with tags at the highway= with no seperately mapped ways.
Therefor we still have highway=crossing nodes _without_ a crossing way.
Some of these still have no bicycle crossing allowed.

How can/should a mapper map this 'new' information now?


Discussed also elsewhere in this thread, but an option is just to
retrain from adding bicycle=no/dismount as it is problematic for routing
while it does not add value, for these highway=crossing nodes _without_
a crossing way routers will not treat them different if there is
bicycle=no/yes/dismount or whatever

If in a later stage the crossing way is added, that crossing way will
have the correct access rights.

Like written, I do not see a need but maybe, like elsewhere proposed, a
new tag should be used instead.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Emvee via Tagging]

On 19/10/2020 11:51, Volker Schmidt wrote:

Martin, please do not even think about deprecating a tagging that is
heavily used.like highway=crossing with bicycke=no|yes|dismount


I do not call highway=crossing with bicycle=no|dismount heavily used. On
some locations the density is higher but on quite some places it is not
used at all. Most people understand after some explanation how routers
are interpreting things and see the problem. An educated guess is that
we are talking about 3000 cases that are problematic.


I am already ignoring the frequent JOSM Warning about the deprecated
crossing=island which JOSM shows me everytime I download a stretch of
road that contains this tagging, not to speak of the tens of warnings
of deprecated tags in bus lines, which I even don't know how to fix,
that turn up everytime I my download area touches a bus line.

People differ, I like data consistency and try to fix problems reported
and see it as a good way to learn more about openstreetmap.

I also don't agree with " not worth the benefit of informing cyclists
whether they have to push 4 meters or can drive on the crossing.". To
the contrary, I would like the bicycle routers to inform the cuyclist
about the difference nd send them preferably across bicycle-friendly
crossings.
Good bicycle navigation is an important issue, in the context of bike
sharing, and for people who trvel with their folding bikes.


First observation is that for 95% of the cases the access rights of the
connection ways suffice, so it can be see as pointless tagging. For the
remaining 5% of the cases, things can be fixed by mapping the actual
length of the crossing as separate osm way with the right access rights.
That way the bicycle routes can make an even better estimate on how long
the crossing takes.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Emvee via Tagging]

On 18/10/2020 10:30, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Oct 18, 2020, 10:27 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

On 18/10/2020 07:46, Volker Schmidt wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:46, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on the
crossing node, but refrain from access like tags on this node
(no bicycle or foot tags). The access should be derived from
the crossing ways.


This statement is only correct if there are crossing ways using
the crossing node.
However, in practical terms it happens very often that in a first
mapping of a road the foot and/or bicycle crossings, as they are
nicely visible on aerial imaging, ar mapped, but not the crossing
foot- and/or cycle-ways, mainly because the details are not
visible on aerial imagery or the mapper is not interested, at
that stage, in foot/cycling details. And the distinction, at
least in Italy, between foot-only and combined foot-cycle
crossing are well visable on satellite imagery. Also
traffic-signals are often clearly visible because of the stop
lines. Hence in that first round it is easy to map crossings and
basic crossing types. The crossing way is then often added later.
To me it comes natural not to remove the existing tagging on a
crossing node when I add a crossing  way later.


But what is the use of adding bicycle=no/dismount for, let's call
it a solitary crossings?

What you mean by "solitary crossing"?

I have been working on code to detect types of crossing, so here you go.

A node marked with highway=crossing that is part of:

  *  one osm way that is not highway=footway/pedestrian/cycleway or
equivalent and where the node is not the end of start of the osm way
   * two osm ways that are both highway=footway/pedestrian/cycleway or
equivalent and where for both osm ways the node is either the end or
start of the osm way

(Did leave out oneway osm ways)

Anythings else is not a solitary crossing.
Do you have a better name?


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Emvee via Tagging]

On 18/10/2020 07:46, Volker Schmidt wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:46, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on the crossing
node, but refrain from access like tags on this node (no bicycle
or foot tags). The access should be derived from the crossing ways.


This statement is only correct if there are crossing ways using the
crossing node.
However, in practical terms it happens very often that in a first
mapping of a road the foot and/or bicycle crossings, as they are
nicely visible on aerial imaging, ar mapped, but not the crossing
foot- and/or cycle-ways, mainly because the details are not visible on
aerial imagery or the mapper is not interested, at that stage, in
foot/cycling details. And the distinction, at least in Italy, between
foot-only and combined foot-cycle crossing are well visable on
satellite imagery. Also traffic-signals are often clearly visible
because of the stop lines. Hence in that first round it is easy to map
crossings and basic crossing types. The crossing way is then often
added later. To me it comes natural not to remove the existing tagging
on a crossing node when I add a crossing  way later.


But what is the use of adding bicycle=no/dismount for, let's call it a
solitary crossings?

When in a later stage the crossing way is added this information is not
needed and in the first stage it does not add value to routers.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Emvee via Tagging]

Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to
pedestrian crossings

Is there a case where hgv use sidewalk together with pedestrians
and cross road using crossing shared with a pedestrians?

Is there a case of sidewalk where hgv are allowed but on crossing
with road oneis supposed to walk carrying your vehicle?

Is there some existing usage of hgv=noon crossings?


Valid questions, but the exact same questions apply for a
pedestrian way crossing a secondary. On that pedestrian way
cyclists are not allowed so what is the use of adding bicycle=no
to the crossing node?

I agree that adding bicycle=no on highway=crossing is pointless on
footways with bicycle=no or
where bicycle=no is implied

It is useful solely if cyclists are allowed on cycleway/footway
crossing road and are obligated to
dismount if crossing road at that point


It would be good if all crossings that require this special handling can
be found searching for bicycle=no + highway=crossing but that is not
possible as the overwhelming majority are cases of pointless tagging.

For these abnormal cases cyclist are never obliged to dismount at the
point of the crossing but from one side of the road to the other side of
the road so tagging that part of the way separately is more precise.


(and yes, in most cases, though not all, it can be retagged as access
tagging on way)


Can you give an example?



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

[Emvee via Tagging]

On 16/10/2020 09:06, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

It does not currently take any account of bicycle=no on a crossing,
not least because bicycle=no is a very problematic tag - generally
bicycle=dismount should be used instead, reserving bicycle=no for
those circumstances where even pushing a bike is not legal (e.g. most
public footpaths in England & Wales).


Good to hear what cycle.travel does regarding with bicycle=no/dismount
on a crossing, that is ignore it. Also good to hear your perspective on
bicycle=dismount versus bicycle=no. It makes sense but I was not aware.

On bicycle=no/dismount on highway=crossing: In >95% of the cases
bicycle=no/dismount is useless because the access rights on the
connecting ways suffice. My educated guess is that there are about 3000
crossings marked with bicycle=no/dismount while allowed to cycle over
them using the road.

brouter does take bicycle=no/dismount in node context into account, see
https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265 and that gives a moderate
penalty as the assumption is made on can unmount crossing the crossing
node.

The problem with ignoring is that "bicycle=no/dismount" on
highway=crossing is that it becomes use useless tag. The main data
consumers of openstreetmap data are map makers (who do not care) and
routers as for others the data on crossings is not complete enough for
other use. So the routing perspective is an important one.

Should routers (keep) ignoring bicycle=no/dismount on a highway=crossing
node?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

[Emvee via Tagging]

On 15/10/2020 17:36, Jmapb via Tagging wrote:

I've always been surprised to see a footway=crossing/cycleway=crossing
way with the intersection node tagged as highway=crossing. There's
only a single physical crossing, so this seems contra to the
one-feature-one-element rule.

A highway=crossing node makes sense in an area without mapped
footways/cycleways. But if the crossing ways are mapped, routing
software will need to examine the intersection node and scan the
properties of all highways intersecting there. It seems to make
tagging the node itself redundant.

Are there really routers that require the node be tagged as well?


Routers do not need highway=crossing to detect crossings, every node
where 3 or more ways connect is a crossing.

I also do not add highway=crossing unless I also add crossing=*


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Emvee via Tagging]

Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to pedestrian
crossings

Is there a case where hgv use sidewalk together with pedestrians and
cross road using crossing shared with a pedestrians?

Is there a case of sidewalk where hgv are allowed but on crossing with
road oneis supposed to walk carrying your
vehicle?

Is there some existing usage of hgv=noon crossings?


Valid questions, but the exact same questions apply for a pedestrian way
crossing a secondary. On that pedestrian way cyclists are not allowed so
what is the use of adding bicycle=no to the crossing node?


, IMHO this would be as correct as adding bicycle=no, because
neither of them can cross at the pedestrian crossing, but overall
it could be seen as very bad tagging because of the ambiguity (for
the road users).


Agreed.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Emvee via Tagging]

Also, what "to mean bicyle=no in node context" is exactly supposed to
mean?
(I am guess based on your earlier claim, but I am not sure whatever I
guessed correctly)


In node context means that the router only looks at the data belong to
the node to decide what costs to add.

See also the end of
https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/blob/master/misc/profiles2/trekking.brf
under the comment:

---context:node # following code refers to node tags


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Emvee via Tagging]

This recent wiki change by Emvee
 is in my view not
helpful, or even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread
tagging practice (if we like this or not is a different question, but
it's established tagging, and the wiki is supposed to describe the
establsihed methods of tagging)


The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a node, see
https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265

Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore bicycle=no in
combination with highway=crossing means that it is more or less useless
as routers are they main data consumers while at the same time crossing
data is far from being complete.

My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and it does not
add new information as weather it is a pedestrian issue can be deduced
from the connecting ways.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Emvee via Tagging]

On 13/10/2020 16:07, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 8:07 AM OSM mailto:o...@bavarianmallet.de>> wrote:


How to solve the issue with a single crossing node at
highway=
without a crossing highway= because of "sideway
tagging by tags on highway" mapping?


I don't try to solve it. I put in a short way for the crossing.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/781981138
 is the first example
that came to mind for me.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/49667335508
 is a street view of
the crossing in question.

That is a perfect solution that is even better then it would be as
mapping the crossing node because now the router can make a good
estimate based on the length on what travel time it takes, that is not
possible with a node.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bicycle lane on mini-rounabout

[Emvee via Tagging]

How do I tag a bicycle lane (way.Type element on a mini-roundabout
(node-type element)?.
Example:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/-yxlx8FNVBHgMC7LH9eFNA



I would say cycleway=lane.

Remarkable enough no node with highway=mini_roundabout is currently
mapped with cycleway=* so you would be the first.

On why this is not common. I did do a Overpass query on
highway=mini_roundabout where the connecting ways have cycleway=* for a
bbox covering the Netherlands

[out:xml][timeout:90][bbox:{{bbox}}];
(
  node["highway"="mini_roundabout"];
)->.mras;
.mras < ->.ws;
way.ws["highway"] ->.result;
(.result;>;);
out meta;

I checked about 15 mini_roundabout's for which there is Mapillary
imaginary and there is no cycle lane at the mini_roundabout.

Thinking as cyclist this makes sense to me, on a small roundabouts (so
"small" roads) I like to drive more to the middle of the road so cars
are not temped to pass me.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Emvee via Tagging]

I agree that splitting way and having short section as footway is also
correct tagging and
making data processing easier for router.


Normally splitting is not needed but yes, for uncommon/strange
situations the part of the way that is actually crossing the way can be
tagged with the needed access tags.

It not only makes it easier, brouter does currently does not support
evaluating access on a node in the context of the incoming and outgoing
way. I think that holds for other routers using openstreetmap data.


Though harder for other data consumers, for example detecting
of places where bicycle crossing should be created would be
significantly harder.


Good to think about data consumers!

The largest consumers of this data by far are routers. I do not see any
time soon and likely never other use as the majority of crossing is
still not mapped with highway=crossing/crossing=* and even the crossing
mapped such very few have bicycle=*

So make the life of routers hard/impossible while optimizing for some
future, imaginary data use?


But many highway=crossing bicycle=no exists and OSM Wiki should
document that also this
tagging scheme is used and what is its meaning as used by mappers.


Yes, it exists (although marginally) but by documenting it is implicitly
recommended and in this case it was explicitly recommended.

Or ... will somebody start documenting that routing a pedestrian/bicycle
route over a way that is not accessible is a good idea? (60.000
problems, see http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/errors/?item=3240)


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Emvee via Tagging]

Basic question I think, for a bicycle router bicycle=no on a node means 
it should "avoid" crossing the node likely by adding a moderate penalty 
as the cyclist could make the choice to dismount passing the node. I 
know at least on bicycle router implementing it this way, see 
https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265


Question now is if this rule should be applied differently if it is used 
in combination with highway=crossing.


The recent "meaning of highway=crossing + bicycle=no" thread makes the 
case that it means "you cannot use this crossing to cross road while 
cycling, it does not affect legality of cycling on the road"


I think this is a bad idea as that way the access can not be evaluated 
in node context (a router would have to look at the incoming and 
outgoing way) while adding bicycle=yes/no to a crossing node does not 
give "additional possibilities"; by giving the right access rights on 
the ways connecting to the node all possible access scenarios can be 
covered.


Started this new thread as I just subscribed to the tagging list and I 
think this title is more focusing on what is the point but please have a 
look at
"meaning of highway=crossing + bicycle=no" thread for the other side of 
the story, 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-October/055611.html


Would be good to get some feedback from others as this has been a (too) 
long debate between only me and the of the author of the "meaning of 
highway=crossing + bicycle=no" thread, see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dcrossing#highway.3Dcrossing_with_bicycle.3Dno



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging