Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?&In-Reply-To=<88cad950-d9cc-3c2e-9015-a54d7206a...@gmx.com>

[Florimond Berthoux]

That’s why we render surface quality tags (surface/tracktype/smoothness) in
CyclOSM on every road.
So the reader can know the real state without bad assumptions*, and choose
if he prefer whoosh or plod depending of his ride style.

https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=15/49.1637/2.6323/cyclosm

*Though we render for the moment no surface tags as paved, but there is a
ticket for that..
[/advertisement]

Le mar. 11 févr. 2020 à 02:19, Andrew Davidson  a
écrit :

> On 11/02/2020 1:40 am, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > Curious to understand why this is a cycleway and not an asphalted path.
> >
>
> When I look at it what I'm hearing is whoosh:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-- 
Florimond Berthoux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?&In-Reply-To=<88cad950-d9cc-3c2e-9015-a54d7206a...@gmx.com>

[Andrew Davidson]

On 11/02/2020 1:40 am, Marc Gemis wrote:

Curious to understand why this is a cycleway and not an asphalted path.



When I look at it what I'm hearing is whoosh:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?&In-Reply-To=<88cad950-d9cc-3c2e-9015-a54d7206a...@gmx.com>

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 8:41 AM Marc Gemis  wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:26 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:36 AM Florimond Berthoux <
> florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Le lun. 10 févr. 2020 à 09:49, AndreasTUHU  a
> écrit :
> >>>
> >>> I agree that 'surface' tag should be mandatory but in Hungary 54
> percent of the mixed foot-cycle-ways misses this tag.
> >>> Additionally, the 20 percent of foot-cycle-ways has no 'segregated'
> tag. Not ideal conditions for converting mixed cycleways to path :)
> >>
> >>
> >> I don’t understand, for me a mixed cycleway has no sense, if it’s mixed
> well it is a path segregated or not.
> >
> >
> > It's common in North America.  Sometimes it even switches between a path
> and a cycleway.  Galloping Goose Cycleway and Trail in Canada's a fantastic
> example of both.
> >
> > 1. Cycleway that allows pedestrians:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galloping_Goose_Regional_Trail#/media/File:Galloping_Goose_Regional_Trail,_Saanich,_British_Columbia,_Canada_17.jpg
>
> Curious to understand why this is a cycleway and not an asphalted path.
>

Primary purpose as indicated by the presence of dedicated lanes and signage
specifically for cyclists.  Busier parts also include ◊ 🚲 ↑ and signs
reminding pedestrians to walk near the edge.  Oklahoma and Oregon do
something similar but often omit the "bike lane" markings and instead ask
pedestrians to walk on the right half, preferably near the edge.

Similar to tertiary roads that allow pedestrians but lack sidewalks.  It
still has lanes, pedestrians are allowed.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?&In-Reply-To=<88cad950-d9cc-3c2e-9015-a54d7206a...@gmx.com>

[Marc Gemis]

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:26 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:36 AM Florimond Berthoux 
>  wrote:
>>
>> Le lun. 10 févr. 2020 à 09:49, AndreasTUHU  a écrit :
>>>
>>> I agree that 'surface' tag should be mandatory but in Hungary 54 percent of 
>>> the mixed foot-cycle-ways misses this tag.
>>> Additionally, the 20 percent of foot-cycle-ways has no 'segregated' tag. 
>>> Not ideal conditions for converting mixed cycleways to path :)
>>
>>
>> I don’t understand, for me a mixed cycleway has no sense, if it’s mixed well 
>> it is a path segregated or not.
>
>
> It's common in North America.  Sometimes it even switches between a path and 
> a cycleway.  Galloping Goose Cycleway and Trail in Canada's a fantastic 
> example of both.
>
> 1. Cycleway that allows pedestrians: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galloping_Goose_Regional_Trail#/media/File:Galloping_Goose_Regional_Trail,_Saanich,_British_Columbia,_Canada_17.jpg

Curious to understand why this is a cycleway and not an asphalted path.

regards

m

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?&In-Reply-To=<88cad950-d9cc-3c2e-9015-a54d7206a...@gmx.com>

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:36 AM Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Le lun. 10 févr. 2020 à 09:49, AndreasTUHU  a écrit :
>
>> I agree that 'surface' tag should be mandatory but in Hungary 54 percent
>> of the mixed foot-cycle-ways misses this tag.
>> Additionally, the 20 percent of foot-cycle-ways has no 'segregated' tag.
>> Not ideal conditions for converting mixed cycleways to path :)
>>
>
> I don’t understand, for me a mixed cycleway has no sense, if it’s mixed
> well it is a path segregated or not.
>

It's common in North America.  Sometimes it even switches between a path
and a cycleway.  Galloping Goose Cycleway and Trail in Canada's a fantastic
example of both.

1. Cycleway that allows pedestrians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galloping_Goose_Regional_Trail#/media/File:Galloping_Goose_Regional_Trail,_Saanich,_British_Columbia,_Canada_17.jpg

2. A path segment of the same in a more rural area:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galloping_Goose_Regional_Trail#/media/File:Galloping_Goose_Trail._INFO_IN_PANORAMIO_DESCRIPTION_-_panoramio.jpg

3. Keep going further out and it becomes a track (with obvious evidence
doubletracked vehicles, like maintenance trucks, do use it, but probably
not open to most motor vehicles):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galloping_Goose_Regional_Trail#/media/File:Galloping_Goose_Trail_-_a_restored_train_station_near_the_Sooke_Potholes.jpg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?&In-Reply-To=<88cad950-d9cc-3c2e-9015-a54d7206a...@gmx.com>

[Florimond Berthoux]

Hi,

« Implied tag is the root of all evil »
as a wise man once said.

I begin to think that implied tag is bad, let the data consumer do that.
As long as the data is not set I consider the data imprecise.
For instance in France I will assume by default that every road is paved,
but it doesn’t mean that every unpaved road are tagged properly...

In France I tag cycleway when it’s a legal cycle path (square / round
traffic sign, bicycle logo on the ground), footway where only pedestrian as
the right to go there, and path when it’s unclear or mixed with proper
access tags
I don’t assume surface, though I try to tag every time when it’s not paved.

(This discussion has the smell of tag to render (as the hedge area
discussion) :()

Le lun. 10 févr. 2020 à 09:49, AndreasTUHU  a écrit :

> I agree that 'surface' tag should be mandatory but in Hungary 54 percent
> of the mixed foot-cycle-ways misses this tag.
> Additionally, the 20 percent of foot-cycle-ways has no 'segregated' tag.
> Not ideal conditions for converting mixed cycleways to path :)
>

I don’t understand, for me a mixed cycleway has no sense, if it’s mixed
well it is a path segregated or not.


> So in Hungary we will contiune to use the "cycleway scheme".
>
> Best regards,
> András
>
> Volker Schmidt  ezt írta (időpont: 2020. febr. 6., Cs,
> 0:19):
>
>> Your first point is correct and it applies here in Italy as well.
>>
>> The default surface argument is weak. We do have unpaved official cycle
>> and foot-cycle paths.
>> The surface tag is mandatory in my view.
>> The same applies to sidewalks and minor roads.
>>
>> And the "path" approach for foot-cycle-way is very frequent in some
>> countries. So it's there. I would not deprecate other tagging practices
>> though.
>>
>> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?&In-Reply-To=<88cad950-d9cc-3c2e-9015-a54d7206a...@gmx.com>

[Volker Schmidt]

Andras,
as far as I can see this field is a bit of a mess, and the data consumers
will have to live with that.
I did not want to imply that "my" approach is better or worse.
In my view there is no way to "convert" existing tagging.

Volker

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 09:49, AndreasTUHU  wrote:

> I agree that 'surface' tag should be mandatory but in Hungary 54 percent
> of the mixed foot-cycle-ways misses this tag.
> Additionally, the 20 percent of foot-cycle-ways has no 'segregated' tag.
> Not ideal conditions for converting mixed cycleways to path :)
> So in Hungary we will contiune to use the "cycleway scheme".
>
> Best regards,
> András
>
> Volker Schmidt  ezt írta (időpont: 2020. febr. 6., Cs,
> 0:19):
>
>> Your first point is correct and it applies here in Italy as well.
>>
>> The default surface argument is weak. We do have unpaved official cycle
>> and foot-cycle paths.
>> The surface tag is mandatory in my view.
>> The same applies to sidewalks and minor roads.
>>
>> And the "path" approach for foot-cycle-way is very frequent in some
>> countries. So it's there. I would not deprecate other tagging practices
>> though.
>>
>> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?&In-Reply-To=<88cad950-d9cc-3c2e-9015-a54d7206a...@gmx.com>

[AndreasTUHU]

I agree that 'surface' tag should be mandatory but in Hungary 54 percent of
the mixed foot-cycle-ways misses this tag.
Additionally, the 20 percent of foot-cycle-ways has no 'segregated' tag.
Not ideal conditions for converting mixed cycleways to path :)
So in Hungary we will contiune to use the "cycleway scheme".

Best regards,
András

Volker Schmidt  ezt írta (időpont: 2020. febr. 6., Cs,
0:19):

> Your first point is correct and it applies here in Italy as well.
>
> The default surface argument is weak. We do have unpaved official cycle
> and foot-cycle paths.
> The surface tag is mandatory in my view.
> The same applies to sidewalks and minor roads.
>
> And the "path" approach for foot-cycle-way is very frequent in some
> countries. So it's there. I would not deprecate other tagging practices
> though.
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?&In-Reply-To=<88cad950-d9cc-3c2e-9015-a54d7206a...@gmx.com>

[Volker Schmidt]

Your first point is correct and it applies here in Italy as well.

The default surface argument is weak. We do have unpaved official cycle and
foot-cycle paths.
The surface tag is mandatory in my view.
The same applies to sidewalks and minor roads.

And the "path" approach for foot-cycle-way is very frequent in some
countries. So it's there. I would not deprecate other tagging practices
though.



Il mer 5 feb 2020, 16:29 Dörögdi András  ha scritto:

> Some thoughts from cyclist perspective.
> I personally not using the (highway=path + bicycle=designated +
> foot=designated) combination for shared foot- and cycleways.
>
>  1) If I change a cycleway to path, I will unintentionally enable access
> for equestrians on the highway (according to this table:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Hungary
> )
>  So I need to add an additional 'horse=no' tag to highway=path
>
>  2) The iD Editor doesn't know the shared foot and cycleways, it only
> displays the highway as a classic 'path' category, just like a forest path.
>  Result: some iD users begins to change highway=path back to
> highway=cycleway or highway=footway in urban environment.
>
>  3) As already mentioned by many, without the surface tag the highway=path
> could become meaningless. Some routing engine interprets
>  highway=path + bicycle=designated + foot=designated as an unpaved path,
> while interpreting highway=cycleway as a paved road (correctly)
>  Result: some bicycle routers begins to avoid shared foot- and cycleways
> tagged with highway=path w/o surface.
>  I know we are not mapping for the outputs, but the cycleways works nearly
> perfect while the path does not. Why do we change?
>
> So I need to add two additional tags for the same result without any
> advantages.
>
> highway=cycleway
> foot=designated
> segregated=yes
>
> highway=path
> foot=designated
> bicycle=designated
> horse=no
> surface=asphalt
>
> Best regards,
> András
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?&In-Reply-To=<88cad950-d9cc-3c2e-9015-a54d7206a...@gmx.com>

[Dörögdi András]

Some thoughts from cyclist perspective.
I personally not using the (highway=path + bicycle=designated +
foot=designated) combination for shared foot- and cycleways.

 1) If I change a cycleway to path, I will unintentionally enable access
for equestrians on the highway (according to this table:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Hungary
)
 So I need to add an additional 'horse=no' tag to highway=path

 2) The iD Editor doesn't know the shared foot and cycleways, it only
displays the highway as a classic 'path' category, just like a forest path.
 Result: some iD users begins to change highway=path back to
highway=cycleway or highway=footway in urban environment.

 3) As already mentioned by many, without the surface tag the highway=path
could become meaningless. Some routing engine interprets
 highway=path + bicycle=designated + foot=designated as an unpaved path,
while interpreting highway=cycleway as a paved road (correctly)
 Result: some bicycle routers begins to avoid shared foot- and cycleways
tagged with highway=path w/o surface.
 I know we are not mapping for the outputs, but the cycleways works nearly
perfect while the path does not. Why do we change?

So I need to add two additional tags for the same result without any
advantages.

highway=cycleway
foot=designated
segregated=yes

highway=path
foot=designated
bicycle=designated
horse=no
surface=asphalt

Best regards,
András
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Hubert87]

Am 29.01.2020 um 21:11 schrieb Hubert87:

Just my two cents from germany:

In general

hw=cycleway  <> hw=path + bicycle=designated;
hw=footway<> hw=path + foot=designated;
hw=bridleway <> hw=path + horse=designated;

For combinded foot and cycle paths: hw=path + bicycle=designated +
foot=designated + segregated=no;

For segregated foot and cycle paths:  hw=path + bicycle=designated +
foot=designated + segregated=no;

that's segregated=yes of course.


hw=path was supposed to decrapate hw=cycleway/footway/bridleway (*that
went well*)

hw=path is not only for trials. You can use "informal=yes"
(indocumented) if it's a path by "popular demand" and not a planned one.
Path itself also does not imply anything about it's surface. For that
use "surface=ground/compacted/asphalt/concrete/etc.", (*duh*)

Of course I'm not very familiary with mapping conventions in the new
world, so please take this at your discretion.

Yours
Hubert87


Am 27.01.2020 um 16:36 schrieb Jmapb:

Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ):


For mapping a separate path (on a separate way) dedicated to cycling
traffic use highway=cycleway. Foot traffic is restricted on these
paths.

  *  Do not use highway=cycleway on paths for both cyclist and foot
traffic (such as shared paths). Instead use highway=path with
bicycle=designated and foot=designated. Add also segregated=yes or
segregated=no) as applicable.
   * For paths where cycling is not permissible use highway=footway.
If cycling is permissible even if it is not signed but legally
permissible on a path, use highway=path (and a combination of the
segregated key and designated tag as applicable) and not
highway=footway.


(This was added by wiki user Aaronsta last May, with no change
description.)

Does anyone know if there was a discussion, here or elsewhere, that led
to this change?

My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
access keys for any other permitted traffic. Similarly for
highway=footway. So "highway=cycleway + foot=yes" and "highway=footway +
bicycle=designated" are quite common. Is there a general consensus that
these are better mapped as highway=path?

If so, we might want to consider standardizing the highway=cycleway and
highway=footway wiki pages with this same rule. And also editing the
highway=path page, which currently says it's not for use in urban
situations.

Thanks, Jason


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


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


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Hubert87]

Just my two cents from germany:

In general

hw=cycleway  <> hw=path + bicycle=designated;
hw=footway<> hw=path + foot=designated;
hw=bridleway <> hw=path + horse=designated;

For combinded foot and cycle paths: hw=path + bicycle=designated +
foot=designated + segregated=no;

For segregated foot and cycle paths:  hw=path + bicycle=designated +
foot=designated + segregated=no;

hw=path was supposed to decrapate hw=cycleway/footway/bridleway (*that
went well*)

hw=path is not only for trials. You can use "informal=yes"
(indocumented) if it's a path by "popular demand" and not a planned one.
Path itself also does not imply anything about it's surface. For that
use "surface=ground/compacted/asphalt/concrete/etc.", (*duh*)

Of course I'm not very familiary with mapping conventions in the new
world, so please take this at your discretion.

Yours
Hubert87


Am 27.01.2020 um 16:36 schrieb Jmapb:

Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ):


For mapping a separate path (on a separate way) dedicated to cycling
traffic use highway=cycleway. Foot traffic is restricted on these paths.

  *  Do not use highway=cycleway on paths for both cyclist and foot
traffic (such as shared paths). Instead use highway=path with
bicycle=designated and foot=designated. Add also segregated=yes or
segregated=no) as applicable.
   * For paths where cycling is not permissible use highway=footway.
If cycling is permissible even if it is not signed but legally
permissible on a path, use highway=path (and a combination of the
segregated key and designated tag as applicable) and not
highway=footway.


(This was added by wiki user Aaronsta last May, with no change
description.)

Does anyone know if there was a discussion, here or elsewhere, that led
to this change?

My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
access keys for any other permitted traffic. Similarly for
highway=footway. So "highway=cycleway + foot=yes" and "highway=footway +
bicycle=designated" are quite common. Is there a general consensus that
these are better mapped as highway=path?

If so, we might want to consider standardizing the highway=cycleway and
highway=footway wiki pages with this same rule. And also editing the
highway=path page, which currently says it's not for use in urban
situations.

Thanks, Jason


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


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:08 PM Jarek Piórkowski 
wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:55, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:51 PM Jarek Piórkowski 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets 
> wrote:
> >> >> That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common
> practice.
> >> >> I personally tag `highway=cycleway` where bikes significantly
> outnumber foot traffic, `highway=footway` where foot traffic significantly
> outnumbers bikes, `highway=path` for the rest.
> >> >> If you need to explicitly disallow bikes or foot you use access tags.
> >> >
> >> > This seems a little iffy.  I mean, footway is obvious, is it designed
> for people on foot, and too narrow for oncoming bikes to meet?  Footway.
> City sidewalk?  Footway.  A path through a park?  Probably a path
> (especially if it's multiuse), unless it's really narrow, then footway.
> Has lanes but isn't a street?  Cycleway.
> >>
> >> Around Toronto I've generally seen (and also tagged myself), for
> >> routes through a park, footway if it's paved or otherwise major, path
> >> if it's unpaved or overgrown or status uncertain. So I interpret
> >> highway=footway to be "higher grade" than highway=path - the opposite
> >> of your interpretation, I fear...
> >
> > Not higher grade, just not as specialized in its design purpose and what
> other use modes will not find their needs particularly addressed if it's
> allowed at all.  In a venn diagram of bridleway, cycleway and footway, path
> is in the middle.
>
> Hm, that's not how I think about it. In my mental map: bridleway
> doesn't exist (as a big-city mapper); path is something for people but
> nothing major; footway is usually paved with a lot of pedestrians on
> it and if not a sidewalk maybe bikes but not majority; cycleway is
> usually paved with relatively a lot of bicycles on it (can be unpaved
> if out in nature).
>

As previously mentioned, a lot of places (the US and possibly Canada in
particular) have a lot of places that use "multiuse path" and "bicycle
oriented facility" somewhat interchangeably, hence why I tend to make the
distinguishing factor between the two being on whether or not it has
lanes.  So, part of the confusion is general official apathy of such
facilities, and it basically an afterthought chapter in the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Standard Highway Signs and Markings.

Bridleways only come to mind from the only place I've ever seen them,
which, weirdly enough, would be in Los Angeles and its suburbs.  North end
of the San Fernando Valley and going from roughly Pasadena to Indio (this
one also has adjacent foot and cycleways as part of the same right of way!)
has quite a few.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:55, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:51 PM Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets  wrote:
>> >> That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common 
>> >> practice.
>> >> I personally tag `highway=cycleway` where bikes significantly outnumber 
>> >> foot traffic, `highway=footway` where foot traffic significantly 
>> >> outnumbers bikes, `highway=path` for the rest.
>> >> If you need to explicitly disallow bikes or foot you use access tags.
>> >
>> > This seems a little iffy.  I mean, footway is obvious, is it designed for 
>> > people on foot, and too narrow for oncoming bikes to meet?  Footway.  City 
>> > sidewalk?  Footway.  A path through a park?  Probably a path (especially 
>> > if it's multiuse), unless it's really narrow, then footway.  Has lanes but 
>> > isn't a street?  Cycleway.
>>
>> Around Toronto I've generally seen (and also tagged myself), for
>> routes through a park, footway if it's paved or otherwise major, path
>> if it's unpaved or overgrown or status uncertain. So I interpret
>> highway=footway to be "higher grade" than highway=path - the opposite
>> of your interpretation, I fear...
>
> Not higher grade, just not as specialized in its design purpose and what 
> other use modes will not find their needs particularly addressed if it's 
> allowed at all.  In a venn diagram of bridleway, cycleway and footway, path 
> is in the middle.

Hm, that's not how I think about it. In my mental map: bridleway
doesn't exist (as a big-city mapper); path is something for people but
nothing major; footway is usually paved with a lot of pedestrians on
it and if not a sidewalk maybe bikes but not majority; cycleway is
usually paved with relatively a lot of bicycles on it (can be unpaved
if out in nature).

I see now that wiki disagrees, I'll try to adjust my mapping
accordingly... JOSM's rendering of footway as solid line and path as
dashed doesn't help.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:51 PM Jarek Piórkowski 
wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets 
> wrote:
> >> That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common
> practice.
> >> I personally tag `highway=cycleway` where bikes significantly outnumber
> foot traffic, `highway=footway` where foot traffic significantly outnumbers
> bikes, `highway=path` for the rest.
> >> If you need to explicitly disallow bikes or foot you use access tags.
> >
> > This seems a little iffy.  I mean, footway is obvious, is it designed
> for people on foot, and too narrow for oncoming bikes to meet?  Footway.
> City sidewalk?  Footway.  A path through a park?  Probably a path
> (especially if it's multiuse), unless it's really narrow, then footway.
> Has lanes but isn't a street?  Cycleway.
>
> Around Toronto I've generally seen (and also tagged myself), for
> routes through a park, footway if it's paved or otherwise major, path
> if it's unpaved or overgrown or status uncertain. So I interpret
> highway=footway to be "higher grade" than highway=path - the opposite
> of your interpretation, I fear...
>

Not higher grade, just not as specialized in its design purpose and what
other use modes will not find their needs particularly addressed if it's
allowed at all.  In a venn diagram of bridleway, cycleway and footway, path
is in the middle.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets  wrote:
>> That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common practice.
>> I personally tag `highway=cycleway` where bikes significantly outnumber foot 
>> traffic, `highway=footway` where foot traffic significantly outnumbers 
>> bikes, `highway=path` for the rest.
>> If you need to explicitly disallow bikes or foot you use access tags.
>
> This seems a little iffy.  I mean, footway is obvious, is it designed for 
> people on foot, and too narrow for oncoming bikes to meet?  Footway.  City 
> sidewalk?  Footway.  A path through a park?  Probably a path (especially if 
> it's multiuse), unless it's really narrow, then footway.  Has lanes but isn't 
> a street?  Cycleway.

Around Toronto I've generally seen (and also tagged myself), for
routes through a park, footway if it's paved or otherwise major, path
if it's unpaved or overgrown or status uncertain. So I interpret
highway=footway to be "higher grade" than highway=path - the opposite
of your interpretation, I fear...

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets  wrote:

> That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common practice.
> I personally tag `highway=cycleway` where bikes significantly outnumber
> foot traffic, `highway=footway` where foot traffic significantly outnumbers
> bikes, `highway=path` for the rest.
> If you need to explicitly disallow bikes or foot you use access tags.
>

This seems a little iffy.  I mean, footway is obvious, is it designed for
people on foot, and too narrow for oncoming bikes to meet?  Footway.  City
sidewalk?  Footway.  A path through a park?  Probably a path (especially if
it's multiuse), unless it's really narrow, then footway.  Has lanes but
isn't a street?  Cycleway.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Yaro Shkvorets]

That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common practice.
I personally tag `highway=cycleway` where bikes significantly outnumber
foot traffic, `highway=footway` where foot traffic significantly outnumbers
bikes, `highway=path` for the rest.
If you need to explicitly disallow bikes or foot you use access tags.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:37 AM Jmapb  wrote:

> Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ):
>
> > For mapping a separate path (on a separate way) dedicated to cycling
> > traffic use highway=cycleway. Foot traffic is restricted on these paths.
> >
> >   *  Do not use highway=cycleway on paths for both cyclist and foot
> > traffic (such as shared paths). Instead use highway=path with
> > bicycle=designated and foot=designated. Add also segregated=yes or
> > segregated=no) as applicable.
> >* For paths where cycling is not permissible use highway=footway.
> > If cycling is permissible even if it is not signed but legally
> > permissible on a path, use highway=path (and a combination of the
> > segregated key and designated tag as applicable) and not highway=footway.
>
> (This was added by wiki user Aaronsta last May, with no change
> description.)
>
> Does anyone know if there was a discussion, here or elsewhere, that led
> to this change?
>
> My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
> highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
> access keys for any other permitted traffic. Similarly for
> highway=footway. So "highway=cycleway + foot=yes" and "highway=footway +
> bicycle=designated" are quite common. Is there a general consensus that
> these are better mapped as highway=path?
>
> If so, we might want to consider standardizing the highway=cycleway and
> highway=footway wiki pages with this same rule. And also editing the
> highway=path page, which currently says it's not for use in urban
> situations.
>
> Thanks, Jason
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Best Regards,
  Yaro Shkvorets
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Jmapb]

On 1/28/2020 4:49 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:


Be that as it may, there are a great many  `highway=path` objects
where the intent was `combined foot- and cycleway`. The concept that a
`footway` is urban while a `path` represents something more like a
wilderness trail is a rather new one to me. (I'm not saying that it's
new to the community. I may have been misinformed. Many other mappers
were similarly misinformed. Moreover, I've tagged some `footway`
objects that _are_ wilderness trails, as well as urban `path` objects,
and that, too, seems to match local practice.)

Given the large number of objects that are mistagged under the
understanding being proffered, it strikes me that the ship has sailed.
Since `surface=*` and `width=*` are available, they are likely to be
the only reliable way to disambiguate a paved footway from a dirt
hiking trail, or a paved doubletrack from a MTB trail.


My impression from this thread is that none of the three
(highway=footway, highway=cycleway, and highway=path) are deemed
inherently invalid for mapping a mixed bicycle/foot way. Some mappers
may have a heuristic for which to choose or avoid, but there doesn't
seem to be an official rule that holds worldwide. I'm sure a lot of it
is down to local mapping styles. And apparently the urban/rural thing is
a red herring, at least for mixed-use ways.

J


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/01/2020 22:44, Dave F via Tagging wrote:

On 28/01/2020 21:23, Tomas Straupis wrote:


   Yet for ten years ...


I think your mistaken ...



If it helps, someone on anther OSM list went through the previous times 
this has been discussed and came up with 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-October/013031.html 
.  The links from there, especially the thread that starts 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-November/thread.html#19949 
are worth reading.


Of course if you want to venture even further back: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-August/thread.html#17030 
:)


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Dave F via Tagging]

On 28/01/2020 21:23, Tomas Straupis wrote:


   Yet for ten years or even more the logic was that...

   Are there any reasons why this must change now? Any benefits?


I think your mistaken in your timeline. Cycleway & footway were around 
before path was introduced to cover the misinterpretation that cycleway 
automatically means cyclists have priority over pedestrians.


DaveF

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Kevin Kenny]

On 1/28/2020 4:23 PM, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> >Yet for ten years or even more the logic was that if the same way is
> > designated for both pedestrians and cyclists, it cannot be tagged with
> > highway=footway - as it is for cyclists as well, it cannot be tagged
> > with highway=cycleway because it is for pedestrians as well, so such
> > shared ways for this long period were tagged as
> > highway=path+bicycle=designated+foot=designated. This has also been
> > the preset in the main OSM editor - JOSM. This is in documentation and
> > maps for ten or more years.

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 4:37 PM Jmapb  wrote:
> When I draw a highway=cycleway using the JOSM preset, it offers the
> option to tag it with foot=yes/no/dedicated. Likewise, when I draw a
> highway=footway, it offers bicycle=yes/no/dedicated. I can't say how
> long it's been there because I don't generally use the presets. J

Be that as it may, there are a great many  `highway=path` objects
where the intent was `combined foot- and cycleway`. The concept that a
`footway` is urban while a `path` represents something more like a
wilderness trail is a rather new one to me. (I'm not saying that it's
new to the community. I may have been misinformed. Many other mappers
were similarly misinformed. Moreover, I've tagged some `footway`
objects that _are_ wilderness trails, as well as urban `path` objects,
and that, too, seems to match local practice.)

Given the large number of objects that are mistagged under the
understanding being proffered, it strikes me that the ship has sailed.
Since `surface=*` and `width=*` are available, they are likely to be
the only reliable way to disambiguate a paved footway from a dirt
hiking trail, or a paved doubletrack from a MTB trail.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Jmapb]

On 1/28/2020 4:23 PM, Tomas Straupis wrote:

   Yet for ten years or even more the logic was that if the same way is
designated for both pedestrians and cyclists, it cannot be tagged with
highway=footway - as it is for cyclists as well, it cannot be tagged
with highway=cycleway because it is for pedestrians as well, so such
shared ways for this long period were tagged as
highway=path+bicycle=designated+foot=designated. This has also been
the preset in the main OSM editor - JOSM. This is in documentation and
maps for ten or more years.

   Are there any reasons why this must change now? Any benefits?


When I draw a highway=cycleway using the JOSM preset, it offers the
option to tag it with foot=yes/no/dedicated. Likewise, when I draw a
highway=footway, it offers bicycle=yes/no/dedicated. I can't say how
long it's been there because I don't generally use the presets. J


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Tomas Straupis]

2020-01-28, an, 20:15 Jmapb rašė:
> Thanks for the background. Looks like Richard Fairhurst already reverted the 
> "shared foot/bicycle must be path" assertion on the cycleway=* page. J

  Yet for ten years or even more the logic was that if the same way is
designated for both pedestrians and cyclists, it cannot be tagged with
highway=footway - as it is for cyclists as well, it cannot be tagged
with highway=cycleway because it is for pedestrians as well, so such
shared ways for this long period were tagged as
highway=path+bicycle=designated+foot=designated. This has also been
the preset in the main OSM editor - JOSM. This is in documentation and
maps for ten or more years.

  Are there any reasons why this must change now? Any benefits?

-- 
Tomas

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Jmapb]

On 1/27/2020 3:53 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:

The same user also changed the Australian tagging guidelines without
discussion, which we didn't notice till last October:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-October/013009.html

and they were reverted. Didn't notice at the time that he'd also
edited the parent page.

My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic,
and add
access keys for any other permitted traffic. Similarly for
highway=footway. So "highway=cycleway + foot=yes" and
"highway=footway +
bicycle=designated" are quite common.


Using cycleway/footway to map primary/secondary paths is a informal
but common practice.

Is there a general consensus that
these are better mapped as highway=path?


 I had a go at summarising the case against path back in October:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-October/013017.html


Thanks for the background. Looks like Richard Fairhurst already reverted
the "shared foot/bicycle must be path" assertion on the cycleway=* page. J

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Andrew Davidson]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 2:37 AM Jmapb  wrote:

> Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ):
>
> (This was added by wiki user Aaronsta last May, with no change
> description.)
>
> Does anyone know if there was a discussion, here or elsewhere, that led
> to this change?
>

Yes, no. The same user also changed the Australian tagging guidelines
without discussion, which we didn't notice till last October:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-October/013009.html

and they were reverted. Didn't notice at the time that he'd also edited the
parent page.


> My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
> highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
> access keys for any other permitted traffic. Similarly for
> highway=footway. So "highway=cycleway + foot=yes" and "highway=footway +
> bicycle=designated" are quite common.


Using cycleway/footway to map primary/secondary paths is a informal but
common practice.


> Is there a general consensus that
> these are better mapped as highway=path?
>

 I had a go at summarising the case against path back in October:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-October/013017.html
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 3:16 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:
> Here is an example of a major trail in the area where I live: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/385367054 which someone has tagged as a 
> cycleway.  I have biked, walked and ran this trail many different times over 
> the years and I have no indication that it was built for a specific purpose.  
> On a typical day I would say that non cyclists outnumber cyclist. I also just 
> visited the websites for the various entities that manage the trail, and 
> there is no indication I could find that it was built for a single purpose.  
> It is a general recreation trail.  I suspect the "cycleway" tag was used so 
> that it would show up in some cycling specific renderer... but I can't say 
> that for sure.

I wound up creating both 'bicycle' and 'hiking' route relations for
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/306742 (cycle)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5166476 (foot). It looks as if
most of the constituent ways are tagged `highway=path foot=designated
bicycle=designated`.  It's definitely multi-purpose as the
'Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail' name suggests. (I'm very familiar with
it, since a short bit of it is part of my daily commute.)

Waymarked Trails finds the foot and cycling routes, and OpenCycleMap
finds the cycling route, so at least some data consumers were able to
figure this one out, despite not having ways tagged specifically
'footway' or 'cycleway'.

If someone wants to distinguish a dirt singletrack from a paved
cycleway, I'd suggest `surface=*` and `width=*`.

I don't understand the urban-rural discussion at all.
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Mike Thompson]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:32 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:16 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Here is an example of a major trail in the area where I live:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/385367054 which someone has tagged as a
cycleway.  I have biked, walked and ran this trail many different times
over the years and I have no indication that it was built for a specific
purpose.  On a typical day I would say that non cyclists outnumber cyclist.
I also just visited the websites for the various entities that manage the
trail, and there is no indication I could find that it was built for a
single purpose.  It is a general recreation trail.  I suspect the
"cycleway" tag was used so that it would show up in some cycling specific
renderer... but I can't say that for sure.
>
>
> Possibly old version of the way had lanes and signage, which got deleted
in a more recent rebuild?  Or just bad tagging?  Either way, looking at it
in id's default imagery I'd say that definitely looks like a path to me
now, barring any on the ground knowledge.  Though the width and turn radii
on curves tends to make me think they wanted it to be a cycleway but then
either chickened out or downgraded it at the last minute.   
There is a painted centerline if I recall, but does that necessarily mean
it is a "cycleway"?  The centerline is just as much to keep walkers from
taking up the entire trail as it is for cyclists.  Regarding the turn
radii, I would say the authorities probably intended it to be used by
cyclists as well as other users.
___

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Andy Townsend]

On 27/01/2020 17:19, Dave F via Tagging wrote:



On 27/01/2020 16:41, Mike Thompson wrote:


I have never understood the use of tags like "cycleway", "bridleway", 
and
"footway."  To me these mix two different concepts (physical form and 
legal

access) in a single tag.


These values do not indicate a way's form. That is achieved with 
secondary, adjective tags such as segregated/width/surface/smoothness 
etc.



Sure they do - by inference at least.

If a "cyclebridlefootpath"* was constructed "mainly for cycle traffic" 
than it'll tend to have a certain form.  It'll probably not have a 
surface of lumpy rocks.  Something constructed "mainly for horse 
traffic" won't have stiles (other than horse stiles) on it.  Of course, 
it absolutely makes sense to add secondary tags such as surface etc. as 
well.  It's not guaranteed that "everywhere in the world a cycleway will 
have this physical form" but if you know what the norm is for things 
constructed for cycle traffic in whatever country you're in, you've got 
an idea what to expect, even without extra tags.


Re access, in England, I'd also always add access tags where possible 
too, since unlike some other places, there's nothing like 
"allemansrätten" here, and it's quite possible for access to be 
"permissive" or "no" rather than "yes", and where access is "yes" it's 
useful to know why (here usually some other legal designation that 
confers that access).


To get back to the main question, the advice I'd give to people mapping 
cyclebridlefootpaths in their local country is "do whatever other people 
in your country do".  That might vary between "use highway=path for 
almost everything**" and "use duck tagging - pick what something most 
resembles", but if someone follows the local herd at least other people 
locally should understand what they mean.


Best Regards,

Andy

* one of any of what anyone might tag as highway=cycleway, 
highway=bridleway, highway=footway, highway=path.


** obviously highway=path with no other tags is pretty useless - there 
are no clues about either access or form there at all.




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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:16 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:39 AM Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:00 PM Paul Johnson 
> wrote:
> > >  Not exactly helping is that the US tends to also confuse form and
> access, calling things "multipurpose paths" even when they are clearly
> purpose built for a specific mode and possibly even do have specific mode
> restrictions.
> >
> > True enough.  Still, there are a lot of rail-trails and the like where
> > foot, bicycle, and XC ski travel were all contemplated from the moment
> > that the trail was paved. There are also a bunch of recreational
> > trails near me that I'd be hard put to identify whether foot or MTB is
> > the 'primary' use.  And farther out in the sticks, there are a bunch
> > of old carriage roads that were redesignated footways and have
> > subsequently been opened to MTB travel as well. (Some of these are
> > grown to trees to the point where I don't feel comfortable labeling
> > them with `highway=track`.)
> Here is an example of a major trail in the area where I live:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/385367054 which someone has tagged as a
> cycleway.  I have biked, walked and ran this trail many different times
> over the years and I have no indication that it was built for a specific
> purpose.  On a typical day I would say that non cyclists outnumber cyclist.
> I also just visited the websites for the various entities that manage the
> trail, and there is no indication I could find that it was built for a
> single purpose.  It is a general recreation trail.  I suspect the
> "cycleway" tag was used so that it would show up in some cycling specific
> renderer... but I can't say that for sure.
>

Possibly old version of the way had lanes and signage, which got deleted in
a more recent rebuild?  Or just bad tagging?  Either way, looking at it in
id's default imagery I'd say that definitely looks like a path to me now,
barring any on the ground knowledge.  Though the width and turn radii on
curves tends to make me think they wanted it to be a cycleway but then
either chickened out or downgraded it at the last minute.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Mike Thompson]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:39 AM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:00 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
> >  Not exactly helping is that the US tends to also confuse form and
access, calling things "multipurpose paths" even when they are clearly
purpose built for a specific mode and possibly even do have specific mode
restrictions.
>
> True enough.  Still, there are a lot of rail-trails and the like where
> foot, bicycle, and XC ski travel were all contemplated from the moment
> that the trail was paved. There are also a bunch of recreational
> trails near me that I'd be hard put to identify whether foot or MTB is
> the 'primary' use.  And farther out in the sticks, there are a bunch
> of old carriage roads that were redesignated footways and have
> subsequently been opened to MTB travel as well. (Some of these are
> grown to trees to the point where I don't feel comfortable labeling
> them with `highway=track`.)
Here is an example of a major trail in the area where I live:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/385367054 which someone has tagged as a
cycleway.  I have biked, walked and ran this trail many different times
over the years and I have no indication that it was built for a specific
purpose.  On a typical day I would say that non cyclists outnumber cyclist.
I also just visited the websites for the various entities that manage the
trail, and there is no indication I could find that it was built for a
single purpose.  It is a general recreation trail.  I suspect the
"cycleway" tag was used so that it would show up in some cycling specific
renderer... but I can't say that for sure.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Mike Thompson]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:53 AM Tod Fitch  wrote:

>  But having values of footway, path, cycleway and bridal way allow a
short hand that allows the map users (and renderers) to use a set of
assumptions about the way. And it allows mappers to quickly categorize the
way. I personally would find it tedious to the point of probably not
mapping if I had to estimate surface smoothness and width (both of which
can vary wildly) along the length of a hiking trail to indicate this was a
“path” rather than a “footway”.
"path" is a quick way for me to categorize a way. Indicating that it is
something narrower than a track. As I learn more about it, I add additional
tags, most notably, access tags.  I would find it very tedious to try to
determine for what purpose most trails around where I live were built
before I mapped them.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Jmapb]

On 1/27/2020 12:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 16:37 Uhr schrieb Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>>:

And also editing the
highway=path page, which currently says it's not for use in urban
situations.



this seems very strange and is likely the result of fiddling. In the
areas I am aware of, path is the standard way to map mixed mode ways
regardless of context (urban or not).


I misremembered the phrasing slightly -- the actual text on the
highway=path page is


For "urban paths" which are designated for "pedestrians only", it's
better to use highway=footway.


This was added by Geow, an experienced and active German mapper, in
2015. Reading the actual text, I guess that recommendation doesn't have
direct bearing on the question here, which is mixed-use paths not
pedestrian-only paths.

The image caption on highway=path used to say  "semi-urban path" but
this was removed last year by Geow (who left the helpful comment
"Changed incorrect and misleading image caption. Note that "path" is not
restricted to semi-urban and may be sign posted as well" -- now *that's*
how you edit a wiki, my friends!)

J

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Tod Fitch]

Grabbing some random images off the Internet, here are some highway=* and how 
I’d tag them:

highway=path [1]
This may or may not allow horses or bicycles depends on local signage and 
regulations.

highway=footway [2]
This may or may not allow bicycles, depends on local signage. My decision point 
between path and footway is if a wheelchair or baby stroller could be easily 
pushed along the way.

highway=cycleway [3]
This may or may not allow foot traffic (usually allowed but maybe not if there 
is a parallel footway).

Maybe it is just me, but the character of these are quite different to me. 
Major point being a path is not a footway and is not likely to be found in an 
urban or suburban environment in my part of the world.

If one were to say they are all “paths” and they are distinguished by things 
like surface, width, designated or allow modes of transportation then we could 
also dispense with motorway, trunk, primary, secondary, etc. highways and 
simply distinguish them by things like surface, width, direction of travel, 
allowed modes of transportation, maximum speeds, etc. too. But having values of 
footway, path, cycleway and bridal way allow a short hand that allows the map 
users (and renderers) to use a set of assumptions about the way. And it allows 
mappers to quickly categorize the way. I personally would find it tedious to 
the point of probably not mapping if I had to estimate surface smoothness and 
width (both of which can vary wildly) along the length of a hiking trail to 
indicate this was a “path” rather than a “footway”.

Cheers,
Tod

[1] 
https://www.christopherplace.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/smoky-mountain-hiking-trails-romantic-.jpg
[2] 
https://houstonconcreteraising.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/GettyImages-157284009.jpg
[3] 
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/085c322bafe51f2640815fb843bd5dafc8d72095/c=36-0-623-440&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2016/07/27/Milwaukee/mjs-hikebike23_-nws_-sears_b.jpg



> On Jan 27, 2020, at 9:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 16:37 Uhr schrieb Jmapb  >:
> And also editing the
> highway=path page, which currently says it's not for use in urban
> situations.
> 
> 
> 
> this seems very strange and is likely the result of fiddling. In the areas I 
> am aware of, path is the standard way to map mixed mode ways regardless of 
> context (urban or not).
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:00 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>  Not exactly helping is that the US tends to also confuse form and access, 
> calling things "multipurpose paths" even when they are clearly purpose built 
> for a specific mode and possibly even do have specific mode restrictions.

True enough.  Still, there are a lot of rail-trails and the like where
foot, bicycle, and XC ski travel were all contemplated from the moment
that the trail was paved. There are also a bunch of recreational
trails near me that I'd be hard put to identify whether foot or MTB is
the 'primary' use.  And farther out in the sticks, there are a bunch
of old carriage roads that were redesignated footways and have
subsequently been opened to MTB travel as well. (Some of these are
grown to trees to the point where I don't feel comfortable labeling
them with `highway=track`.)

Martin Koppenhoefer:
> this seems very strange and is likely the result of fiddling. In the areas I 
> am aware of, path is the standard way to map mixed mode ways regardless of 
> context (urban or not).

I did that with combined foot/MTB trails near me, and consistently
other mappers retagged them as `highway=footway bicycle=designated`
for the unpaved ones and `highway=cycleway foot=designated` for the
paved ones.  When I saw that this was happening consistently, I
decided to avoid `path`.  (This was quite a long time ago. It may have
been NE2's bot that did the retagging.)
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 16:37 Uhr schrieb Jmapb :

> And also editing the
> highway=path page, which currently says it's not for use in urban
> situations.




this seems very strange and is likely the result of fiddling. In the areas
I am aware of, path is the standard way to map mixed mode ways regardless
of context (urban or not).

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Dave F via Tagging]

On 27/01/2020 16:41, Mike Thompson wrote:


I have never understood the use of tags like "cycleway", "bridleway", and
"footway."  To me these mix two different concepts (physical form and legal
access) in a single tag.


These values do not indicate a way's form. That is achieved with 
secondary, adjective tags such as segregated/width/surface/smoothness etc.



   Also, in the parts of the US where I have lived
there have generally only been "multipurpose" paths/trails (a few
exceptions).


These should be tagged with horse/bicycle/foot = designated/yes/no.

DaveF

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:41 AM Mike Thompson  wrote:

> Also, in the parts of the US where I have lived there have generally only
> been "multipurpose" paths/trails (a few exceptions).
>

 Not exactly helping is that the US tends to also confuse form and access,
calling things "multipurpose paths" even when they are *clearly* purpose
built for a specific mode and possibly even do have specific mode
restrictions.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Dave F via Tagging]

On 27/01/2020 15:36, Jmapb wrote:

My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
access keys for any other permitted traffic. Similarly for
highway=footway. So "highway=cycleway + foot=yes" and "highway=footway +
bicycle=designated" are quite common. Is there a general consensus that
these are better mapped as highway=path?



I tag any path which is designated for bicycle usage as 
highway=cycleway. I then add foot=designated, segregated=* if it is a 
shared use path (The vast majority of cases in the UK)


There's a misconception by some in OSM the highway=cycleway interprets 
as bicycles bicycle riders as having priority. This is not the case. I 
believe this misconception led to the path tag being created. AFAIK no 
major renderers distinguish the path tag. Some have actively discouraged 
it. I agree with them


DaveF

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Mike Thompson]

>> My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
>> highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
>> access keys for any other permitted
traffic.___
I have never understood the use of tags like "cycleway", "bridleway", and
"footway."  To me these mix two different concepts (physical form and legal
access) in a single tag.  Also, in the parts of the US where I have lived
there have generally only been "multipurpose" paths/trails (a few
exceptions).  There are sometimes restrictions on a certain mode of travel
(which the land manager can change from time to time), but the trail is
really constructed for a variety of different uses.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:37 AM Jmapb  wrote:

> Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ):
>
> > For mapping a separate path (on a separate way) dedicated to cycling
> > traffic use highway=cycleway. Foot traffic is restricted on these paths.
> >
> >   *  Do not use highway=cycleway on paths for both cyclist and foot
> > traffic (such as shared paths). Instead use highway=path with
> > bicycle=designated and foot=designated. Add also segregated=yes or
> > segregated=no) as applicable.
> >* For paths where cycling is not permissible use highway=footway.
> > If cycling is permissible even if it is not signed but legally
> > permissible on a path, use highway=path (and a combination of the
> > segregated key and designated tag as applicable) and not highway=footway.
>
> (This was added by wiki user Aaronsta last May, with no change
> description.)
>
> Does anyone know if there was a discussion, here or elsewhere, that led
> to this change?
>
> My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
> highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
> access keys for any other permitted traffic. Similarly for
> highway=footway. So "highway=cycleway + foot=yes" and "highway=footway +
> bicycle=designated" are quite common. Is there a general consensus that
> these are better mapped as highway=path?
>

No, this is also my take.  In North America, I'm generally inclined to go
with highway=cycleway if it has formally marked lanes and highway=path if
it doesn't, and explicitly tag access on both.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Greg Troxel]

Jmapb  writes:

> Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ):
>
>> For mapping a separate path (on a separate way) dedicated to cycling
>> traffic use highway=cycleway. Foot traffic is restricted on these paths.
>>
>>   *  Do not use highway=cycleway on paths for both cyclist and foot
>> traffic (such as shared paths). Instead use highway=path with
>> bicycle=designated and foot=designated. Add also segregated=yes or
>> segregated=no) as applicable.
>>    * For paths where cycling is not permissible use highway=footway.
>> If cycling is permissible even if it is not signed but legally
>> permissible on a path, use highway=path (and a combination of the
>> segregated key and designated tag as applicable) and not highway=footway.
>
> (This was added by wiki user Aaronsta last May, with no change description.)
>
> Does anyone know if there was a discussion, here or elsewhere, that led
> to this change?

This smells like wikifiddling.

> My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
> highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
> access keys for any other permitted traffic. Similarly for
> highway=footway. So "highway=cycleway + foot=yes" and "highway=footway +
> bicycle=designated" are quite common. Is there a general consensus that
> these are better mapped as highway=path?

Overall, I have come to believe that

  highway=cycleway

is *exactly* the same as

  highway=path bicycle=designated

and that any renderer or router that treats them differently is wrong.

However there is the messy issue of default surface values, avoidable by
tagging the surface.

> If so, we might want to consider standardizing the highway=cycleway and
> highway=footway wiki pages with this same rule. And also editing the
> highway=path page, which currently says it's not for use in urban
> situations.

The notion of urban vs not is messy.  I agree that's been part of the
evolving not-really-consensus over the last 10 years.

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Fernando Trebien]

At first glance, the new text seems to contradict some patterns
presented in this article: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

I've been using these patterns in my mappings.

On the other hand, the new text agrees with this:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks#Cycleway_and_footway_on_sidewalk

I know that highway=path should only be used only when it is
impossible to assign a main function to the path, therefore, when the
main function is not clear or when there are several functions and
none of them can be considered the main one. So, what I got in the
first article is that it is assumed that the path formed by a sidewalk
a a parallel cycle path would be meant mainly for cycling and has
walking as a valid, but lesser function.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:37 PM Jmapb  wrote:
>
> Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ):
>
> > For mapping a separate path (on a separate way) dedicated to cycling
> > traffic use highway=cycleway. Foot traffic is restricted on these paths.
> >
> >   *  Do not use highway=cycleway on paths for both cyclist and foot
> > traffic (such as shared paths). Instead use highway=path with
> > bicycle=designated and foot=designated. Add also segregated=yes or
> > segregated=no) as applicable.
> >* For paths where cycling is not permissible use highway=footway.
> > If cycling is permissible even if it is not signed but legally
> > permissible on a path, use highway=path (and a combination of the
> > segregated key and designated tag as applicable) and not highway=footway.
>
> (This was added by wiki user Aaronsta last May, with no change description.)
>
> Does anyone know if there was a discussion, here or elsewhere, that led
> to this change?
>
> My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
> highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
> access keys for any other permitted traffic. Similarly for
> highway=footway. So "highway=cycleway + foot=yes" and "highway=footway +
> bicycle=designated" are quite common. Is there a general consensus that
> these are better mapped as highway=path?
>
> If so, we might want to consider standardizing the highway=cycleway and
> highway=footway wiki pages with this same rule. And also editing the
> highway=path page, which currently says it's not for use in urban
> situations.
>
> Thanks, Jason
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
Fernando Trebien

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

[Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

[Jmapb]

Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ):


For mapping a separate path (on a separate way) dedicated to cycling
traffic use highway=cycleway. Foot traffic is restricted on these paths.

  *  Do not use highway=cycleway on paths for both cyclist and foot
traffic (such as shared paths). Instead use highway=path with
bicycle=designated and foot=designated. Add also segregated=yes or
segregated=no) as applicable.
   * For paths where cycling is not permissible use highway=footway.
If cycling is permissible even if it is not signed but legally
permissible on a path, use highway=path (and a combination of the
segregated key and designated tag as applicable) and not highway=footway.


(This was added by wiki user Aaronsta last May, with no change description.)

Does anyone know if there was a discussion, here or elsewhere, that led
to this change?

My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
access keys for any other permitted traffic. Similarly for
highway=footway. So "highway=cycleway + foot=yes" and "highway=footway +
bicycle=designated" are quite common. Is there a general consensus that
these are better mapped as highway=path?

If so, we might want to consider standardizing the highway=cycleway and
highway=footway wiki pages with this same rule. And also editing the
highway=path page, which currently says it's not for use in urban
situations.

Thanks, Jason


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