Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
when access=destination already exists for exactly this situation. Besides the other arguments about other users already mentioned, the value 'destination' would not work in practice either. For all we know, routing algorithms currently used don't work like a human brain, but they handle destination limits differently. When the algorithms go through the routing graph, they notice the relevant tag with the value 'destination', and thereafter refuse to consider any segment that does _not_ have the value 'destination'. Once you enter a destination only zone, you must find the destination before you leave, otherwise you would be going through. (Also, if the route started in a segment with the value 'destination', this only starts when it first gets to an edge where there is no longer a relevant tag with the value ''destination'). The bicycle=destination tags could not be flood filled to nearby roads without a parallel cycleway (there's no cyclist no through traffic on them). Likewise, if the tag is not flooded, there is in most cases a long detour to get to said tag flooded road without going through the original edge which would have been suggested to be tagged with bicycle=destination; then one would get a long detour route, because it avoids the bicycle=destination bit (even with a better-than-common-practice handling of the value 'destination'). -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
2013/11/14 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
2013/11/14 Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com
For the access tags (and we do discuss access tags here), it is common
practice to have country-specific defaults on certain highway types as
listed in the wiki [1] and only tag what contradicts those defaults.
I'm not sure any of the current routers uses these country specific
defaults. My guess is that normal roads will always be allowed for
everybody except specified explicitly differently, and motorways and roads
with motorroad=yes will exclude certain slow vehicles. Cycleways will allow
cycling and footways walking and usually not cycling. If some country
specific defaults are different and nothing is tagged, it probably won't
work. Usually mappers do add default properties explicitly on roads and
ways, and the more mature a region is mapped, the more of those attributes
you'd usually find.
cheers,
Martin
I think many mappers are very happy with these country specific access
rules. This will prevent an overload of tags on roads. There is only one
router I know personnaly and that is the creator of the Openfietsmap
http://www.openfietsmap.nl/homeGarmin map. His map (lite version) is
also worldwide
http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl/available.
He uses this country specific scheme.
Part of his script is here. I think it makes clear that trunk roads are not
accessabel for bicycles in some countries regardless of any bicycle=no
tag.
highway=trunk mkgmap:country ~
'(NLD|BEL|LUX|FRA|DEU|AUT|CHE|
DNK|HUN|ROU)' { set highway=motorway }
highway=trunk bicycle=no { set highway=motorway }
highway=trunk { set highway=primary }
Cheers
PeeWee32
http://www.openstreetmap.nl/.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013, Masi Master wrote: Hi all, I'm the co-author of this proposal. There are a difference about bicycle-forbidden and a compulsory cycleway. In Germany it is allowed to leave the cycleway for a leftturn, if you choose the normal leftturn-lane (which cars use). Or in Austria training with a racebike is allowed to don't look after compulsory cycleway. I.e. for the last case the router can give you an option to allow bicycle=use_cycleway-roads. Then you really want bicycle=destination and this whole use_cycleway crud is redundant if you've mapped the cycleway correctly. I see no compelling argument to change the world when access=destination already exists for exactly this situation. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
2013/11/15 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org Then you really want bicycle=destination and this whole use_cycleway crud is redundant if you've mapped the cycleway correctly. I see no compelling argument to change the world when access=destination already exists for exactly this situation. If you go back in this thread you'll see that destination is only one of several possibilities for making the cycleway not compulsory any more to the cyclist. I think there is a misconception regarding changing the world, this is nothing you'll have to tag or bother with if you live in an area without compulsory cycleways, so it really doesn't affect you at all. This is about tagging a certain property to a road (this road has a compulsory cycleway associated with it) in certain jurisdictions (e.g. NL, DE), where it does matter. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
On Friday, November 15, 2013, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: If you go back in this thread you'll see that destination is only one of several possibilities for making the cycleway not compulsory any more to the cyclist. I think there is a misconception regarding changing the world, this is nothing you'll have to tag or bother with if you live in an area without compulsory cycleways, so it really doesn't affect you at all. This is about tagging a certain property to a road (this road has a compulsory cycleway associated with it) in certain jurisdictions (e.g. NL, DE), where it does matter. I do live someplace where this is relevant, and I'm still not seeing how the difference between the proposal and bicycle=destination isn't so subtle as to render the distinction irrelevant. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
2013/11/15 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org I do live someplace where this is relevant, and I'm still not seeing how the difference between the proposal and bicycle=destination isn't so subtle as to render the distinction irrelevant. because of the insuitable conditions of the cycleway (e.g. ice and snow in the winter, quite frequent and a lot of time in the year) and because of bicycles too big for the cycleway. These aren't actually caught by destination. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Am 15.11.2013, 17:13 Uhr, schrieb Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: On Tuesday, November 12, 2013, Masi Master wrote: Hi all, I'm the co-author of this proposal. There are a difference about bicycle-forbidden and a compulsory cycleway. In Germany it is allowed to leave the cycleway for a leftturn, if you choose the normal leftturn-lane (which cars use). Or in Austria training with a racebike is allowed to don't look after compulsory cycleway. I.e. for the last case the router can give you an option to allow bicycle=use_cycleway-roads. Then you really want bicycle=destination and this whole use_cycleway crud is redundant if you've mapped the cycleway correctly. I see no compelling argument to change the world when access=destination already exists for exactly this situation. First, we call this value designated. Then we have also cycleways without compulsory, which have also a (different) sign. Belongs the bicycle=designated-tag only to them with compulsory? Why this tag is generally implicit in highway=cycleway? We have also cycleways without signs, which are non-compulsory. So there are no uniformly tagging for compulsory cycleways on the cycleway. I.e., if I hate cycleway and need a route without to use cycleways, how does it work with compulsory cycleways? Banning all cycleways don't work, because near a compulsory cycleways I ride illegally on the road. I have to ban all cycleways and all roads which have a compulsory cycleway (=bicycle=use_cycleway). -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
On Friday, November 15, 2013, Masi Master wrote: Am 15.11.2013, 17:13 Uhr, schrieb Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: On Tuesday, November 12, 2013, Masi Master wrote: Hi all, I'm the co-author of this proposal. There are a difference about bicycle-forbidden and a compulsory cycleway. In Germany it is allowed to leave the cycleway for a leftturn, if you choose the normal leftturn-lane (which cars use). Or in Austria training with a racebike is allowed to don't look after compulsory cycleway. I.e. for the last case the router can give you an option to allow bicycle=use_cycleway-roads. Then you really want bicycle=destination and this whole use_cycleway crud is redundant if you've mapped the cycleway correctly. I see no compelling argument to change the world when access=destination already exists for exactly this situation. First, we call this value designated. Then we have also cycleways without compulsory, which have also a (different) sign. Belongs the bicycle=designated-tag only to them with compulsory? Why this tag is generally implicit in highway=cycleway? We have also cycleways without signs, which are non-compulsory. So there are no uniformly tagging for compulsory cycleways on the cycleway. I.e., if I hate cycleway and need a route without to use cycleways, how does it work with compulsory cycleways? Banning all cycleways don't work, because near a compulsory cycleways I ride illegally on the road. I have to ban all cycleways and all roads which have a compulsory cycleway (=bicycle=use_cycleway). Sounds about right. If you have a cycleway next to a road that you can only use to access locations on it's frontage, or for odd turn situations, seems like the cycleway could be explicitly tagged bicycle=designated, and the road adjacent as bicycle=destination. This, and maybe some turn restriction relations to handle spots where cyclists need to switch to the other roadway to turn, should be ample to deal with all but the most bogus routers. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
The proposed tag is also for odd vehicles. In NL and DE some bicycles with certain measurments may use the adjacent road. Not just for destination purposes. So I'm afraid a bicycle=destination will not work. 2013/11/16 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org On Friday, November 15, 2013, Masi Master wrote: Am 15.11.2013, 17:13 Uhr, schrieb Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: On Tuesday, November 12, 2013, Masi Master wrote: Hi all, I'm the co-author of this proposal. There are a difference about bicycle-forbidden and a compulsory cycleway. In Germany it is allowed to leave the cycleway for a leftturn, if you choose the normal leftturn-lane (which cars use). Or in Austria training with a racebike is allowed to don't look after compulsory cycleway. I.e. for the last case the router can give you an option to allow bicycle=use_cycleway-roads. Then you really want bicycle=destination and this whole use_cycleway crud is redundant if you've mapped the cycleway correctly. I see no compelling argument to change the world when access=destination already exists for exactly this situation. First, we call this value designated. Then we have also cycleways without compulsory, which have also a (different) sign. Belongs the bicycle=designated-tag only to them with compulsory? Why this tag is generally implicit in highway=cycleway? We have also cycleways without signs, which are non-compulsory. So there are no uniformly tagging for compulsory cycleways on the cycleway. I.e., if I hate cycleway and need a route without to use cycleways, how does it work with compulsory cycleways? Banning all cycleways don't work, because near a compulsory cycleways I ride illegally on the road. I have to ban all cycleways and all roads which have a compulsory cycleway (=bicycle=use_cycleway). Sounds about right. If you have a cycleway next to a road that you can only use to access locations on it's frontage, or for odd turn situations, seems like the cycleway could be explicitly tagged bicycle=designated, and the road adjacent as bicycle=destination. This, and maybe some turn restriction relations to handle spots where cyclists need to switch to the other roadway to turn, should be ample to deal with all but the most bogus routers. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor openstreetmaphttp://www.openstreetmap.nl/. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Am 13/nov/2013 um 22:43 schrieb Masi Master masi-mas...@gmx.de: We talk about the correct tagging here. Not about a mechanical edit, it could be a question in the future. But mechanical edit will not work in this case. Yes, excuse me if my mail looked like I might be advocating a mechanical edit, I am not. This is a tag needed only in some areas (with compulsory cycle ways) and has to be set by who knows the spot from survey (parallel is not sufficient, there might be different elevations involved etc. think of hilly areas, retaining_walls,...) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Am 14/nov/2013 um 00:53 schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com: I don't see why you can't tag the roads you're talking about with bicycle=no (or maybe something like bicycle=restricted for the cases where more significant use is allowed) and then add a second tag along the lines of bicycle:restriction=DE:use_cycleway to capture the fact that the legal exclusion of bikes is because of X country's parallel cycleway rules. You shouldn't do it, because it would be wrong. There is no legal exclusion of bikes on the road, there is an obligation - under certain circumstances - to use the cycleway, this is a difference and should not be tagged like an exclusion of bikes on the road (e.g. like on a motorway) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Am 14.11.2013 10:13, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: Am 14/nov/2013 um 00:53 schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com: I don't see why you can't tag the roads you're talking about with bicycle=no (or maybe something like bicycle=restricted for the cases where more significant use is allowed) and then add a second tag along the lines of bicycle:restriction=DE:use_cycleway to capture the fact that the legal exclusion of bikes is because of X country's parallel cycleway rules. You shouldn't do it, because it would be wrong. There is no legal exclusion of bikes on the road, there is an obligation - under certain circumstances - to use the cycleway, this is a difference and should not be tagged like an exclusion of bikes on the road (e.g. like on a motorway) @Martin: Your reply is only valid for the first line of the citation. @Robert: The rest of the citation sounds better than the proposed use_cycleway - at least for me. But its just the name, not the intention, which is the same for both. If there is a need for the additional tag of country-specific or if it may be as country-specific-implicit as other implications for highways already - I don't know. Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Am 14/nov/2013 um 10:40 schrieb Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de: @Martin: Your reply is only valid for the first line of the citation. An approach which combines 2 tags in a way that the meaning is only true for the combination of both, but not for the single tag, does not work well IMHO. We shouldn't have tags like bicycle=no and with a second tag we say, hey, actually that is not a real no in this other tag over there. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
On 14 November 2013 09:13, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see why you can't tag the roads you're talking about with bicycle=no (or maybe something like bicycle=restricted for the cases where more significant use is allowed) and then add a second tag along the lines of bicycle:restriction=DE:use_cycleway to capture the fact that the legal exclusion of bikes is because of X country's parallel cycleway rules. You shouldn't do it, because it would be wrong. There is no legal exclusion of bikes on the road, there is an obligation - under certain circumstances - to use the cycleway, this is a difference and should not be tagged like an exclusion of bikes on the road (e.g. like on a motorway) Assuming that you meet the certain circumstances, I see little practical difference between You can't cycle on the road and you must use the cycleway and not the road in terms of whether or not you are allowed to cycle along the road. Granted, crossing and turning may be slightly different, but for general riding along a stretch of road the effect will be the same -- you can't ride there. However, these slight differences are why I suggested using bicycle=restricted for when the prohibition caused by the presence of a parallel cycleway isn't so absolute. Doing this would seem to be perfectly correct -- cycling on the road is indeed restricted. Doing it this way (rather than a single tag) has the advantage of using a more general value on the access tag (that is thus more likely to be interpreted in an appropriate fashion by more routers), while still allowing (encouraging even) a more specific tag to capture the precise detail of exactly what the (country-specific) restrictions are. We then don't confuse the effect of the legal restrictions with the cause of the restrictions. By encouraging mappers to specify the precise source of the restrictions in a separate tag, we're less likely to get mappers using a bicycle=use_cycleway style tag inappropriately due to misunderstandings, and should end up with better-defined tags and more accurate data. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
And why not? What's the difference between road: you may not cycle, cyclepath: you may cycle and road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath, cyclepath: you may cycle? And if it's such an important difference, why only use this for cyclists? Why not put a motor_vehicle:use_carriageway on the cyclepath? On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 14/nov/2013 um 00:53 schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com: I don't see why you can't tag the roads you're talking about with bicycle=no (or maybe something like bicycle=restricted for the cases where more significant use is allowed) and then add a second tag along the lines of bicycle:restriction=DE:use_cycleway to capture the fact that the legal exclusion of bikes is because of X country's parallel cycleway rules. You shouldn't do it, because it would be wrong. There is no legal exclusion of bikes on the road, there is an obligation - under certain circumstances - to use the cycleway, this is a difference and should not be tagged like an exclusion of bikes on the road (e.g. like on a motorway) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
An approach which combines 2 tags in a way that the meaning is only true for the combination of both, but not for the single tag, does not work well IMHO. We shouldn't have tags like bicycle=no and with a second tag we say, hey, actually that is not a real no in this other tag over there. We already do so for access=no, bike=yes :). -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Am 14.11.2013 10:47, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: Am 14/nov/2013 um 10:40 schrieb Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de: @Martin: Your reply is only valid for the first line of the citation. An approach which combines 2 tags in a way that the meaning is only true for the combination of both, but not for the single tag, does not work well IMHO. We shouldn't have tags like bicycle=no and with a second tag we say, hey, actually that is not a real no in this other tag over there. yes, you are right! The bicycle=no is missed in the first line of the citation (my fault) - but was meant by me. But my OK has gone for the bicycle=restricted instead of bicycle=use_cycleway. Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
What's the difference between road: you may not cycle, cyclepath: you may cycle and road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath, cyclepath: you may cycle? Because it's not road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath, but road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath if the cyclepath is going where you're headed The =use_cycleway / restricted value is closer to destination than to no. It's however with the significant difference that in these cases the destination is not anywhere along either of the tagged ways, but the road is sometimes needed for, like, turning left or right at the next intersection, i.e. the cycleway diverges away from the road before the next intersection, or does not have a legal crossing point at or before the next intersection. There might be a longer route available, by first going along the cycleway somewhere, and then approaching on the road from the other direction - or not. The first best example I found was like this intersection: http://osm.org/go/0xPnBw03o-?node=27254468 When driving east, a cyclist must always use the cycleway on the north side of the road, there are obligating signs after each crossing. However, if turning south at the next one(*), they may use the road. A cyclist driving the road all the way to the eastern end could be fined for not obeying traffic signs, in theory anyway. If the whole road Tattarisuontie was tagged bicycle=no, there would be no way to get a cyclist routed to the Jäähdytintie road southward - beyond a long detour. *) There's a phrase in the relevant paragraph: may use [conditions]... for a short distance but nobody knows what is short. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
2013/11/14 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath if the cyclepath is going where you're headed +1 additionally there might be other factors that make it impossible to use the cycleway (and as the road is not actually forbidden you will use it), for instance in the winter there might be ice and snow on the cycleway. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Be aware that road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath if the cyclepath is going where you're headed is ambiguous. 1) if the cyclepath is going where you're headed, then (and only then) are you allowed to use the cyclepath 2) if the cyclepath is going where you're headed, you are obliged to use the cyclepath, to the exclusion of all other carriageways I think number 2) is intended here? Colin On 2013-11-14 12:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/11/14 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi road: you may only cycle on the cyclepath if the cyclepath is going where you're headed +1 additionally there might be other factors that make it impossible to use the cycleway (and as the road is not actually forbidden you will use it), for instance in the winter there might be ice and snow on the cycleway. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
2) if the cyclepath is going where you're headed, you are obliged to use the cyclepath, to the exclusion of all other carriageways I think number 2) is intended here? Yes, the original was an unreviewed sentence. In the original the if only applies to only, not to may. Normally in routing, the slight preference given to cycleways for a cycling route should weed out the driving on road bits with a parallel cycleway, but because the difference in the edge costs can't be too radical, without the information these tags under discussion try to convey, there are bound to be cases where one either gets illegal routes when the cycleway is somewhat longer, or long detours along cycleways if the edge cost for roads is much higher than the cost for cycleways. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Robert argued here that country-specific restrictions should be always expressed by tags so that routers don't need to know those specific rules/laws. He gave the maxspeed tags as an example, which we explicitly tag even if they are based on implicit laws. I think this generalization is goes too far. For the access tags (and we do discuss access tags here), it is common practice to have country-specific defaults on certain highway types as listed in the wiki [1] and only tag what contradicts those defaults. I don't see why it would be needed to switch that to explicitly tagged values. Opposed to maxspeed, we are talking a large set of different tags here where both tagging as well as legislation is in constant change. Based on these asumptions, I would argue that it would be enough to specify if a compulsory exist or not and leave the details of which type of vehicle can under which conditions use the road or not to the router, which should implement those based on national defaults. So at least the legislation changes can be implemented at a central point. (This is already the default, so no additional change needed for that.) I would prefer an additional tag over a replacement for bicycle=no, as this would allow an easier migration due to not breaking older routers. (This is why I would vote 'no' on the proposal.) I would also say that stating that there IS a compulsory cycleway is a first step, but not enough. To check for certain conditions (width, direction, reachable destination, obstacles, surface), the router would need to know WHICH way is the compulsory cycleway. We can either do this with a relation combining the highway and the cycleway(s) or with tags and self-created references. I would clearly prefer the first. I think neither storing all the information needed for those decissions in the highway tags (instead of the cycleway tags) would be a doable workaround nor pre-interpreting them by the mapper and tagging the result on the highway. As stated above, those interpretations would be based not only on (ever changing) local administration but also on very subjective opinions. As a user, I'd rather have those opinions baked into the routers I can chose, not in the map data all routers have to use. My 2 cents, Chaos [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Germany ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
A question and some remarks Considering routers and not breaking routing. A few of you have made remark concerning breaking schemes and routers getting in to problems. I do not understand this. Ronnie Soak e.g. wrote “I would prefer an additional tag over a replacement for bicycle=no, as this would allow an easier migration due to not breaking older routers.” The definition of the tag is: This is a highway (i.e. tertiary) with a classification that allows cycling generallyhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Germany *without* bicycle forbidden sign and *with* a parallel compulsory cycleway. This means that currently these roads (except NL) do not have a bicycle=no or a bicycle=yes tag. So this tag is NOT replacing any previous tag. If it would replace a current bicycle=no I propably would not have proposed any new tag at all ;-) The absence of any “bicycle=” tag is the reason for this proposal. So if these roads would be tagged with a bicycle=use_cycleway nothing changes in routers because they don’t know the tag and it does not replace any current tag. The first router that picks up this new tag will be able to propose a good route. So why would routers have a problem with this new tag? Restriction instead of use_cycleway Some have said not to be happy with the name “use_cycleway” and instead use something with “restriction” etc. It is true that it is a restriction but the only reason for this restriction is the fact that there is a parallel compulsary cycleway. If this cycleway would not be there, there would not be restriction. So there is a clear relation between the cycleway and the restriction on the road. I think it is best if we have a tag that refers to the cycleway. This way we and routers know that the restrictions are based on (country specific) rules. Sign on one “highway” has access implication on an other “highway” The traffic administration want to keep signs as simple as possible and right they are. Not only to keep overview but also because it is undoable to have signs for every exceptional vehicle or means of transportation. That’s why only the most common vehicles are on access traffic signs. If you drive/ride an exceptional vehicle you are supposed to know where to ride based on signs with only most common vehicles on it. I think this proposal is about a more or less strange situation. Most traffic signs we see have access information about the road on which it is placed. In this situation it is clearly different. Access information on the cycleway (compulsory) means that an ordinary bicycle has to use the cycleway (in most cases) and has no access to the main road. As far as access is concerned the 2 are linked. This would not be the case if the administration would have come up with a new traffic sign on the parallel road saying “in these situations you may use this road but apart from that, use the cycleway”. In that case I am sure we would have come up with a tag somewhere in between bicycle=no and bicycle=yes. 2013/11/14 Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com Robert argued here that country-specific restrictions should be always expressed by tags so that routers don't need to know those specific rules/laws. He gave the maxspeed tags as an example, which we explicitly tag even if they are based on implicit laws. I think this generalization is goes too far. For the access tags (and we do discuss access tags here), it is common practice to have country-specific defaults on certain highway types as listed in the wiki [1] and only tag what contradicts those defaults. I don't see why it would be needed to switch that to explicitly tagged values. Opposed to maxspeed, we are talking a large set of different tags here where both tagging as well as legislation is in constant change. Based on these asumptions, I would argue that it would be enough to specify if a compulsory exist or not and leave the details of which type of vehicle can under which conditions use the road or not to the router, which should implement those based on national defaults. So at least the legislation changes can be implemented at a central point. (This is already the default, so no additional change needed for that.) I would prefer an additional tag over a replacement for bicycle=no, as this would allow an easier migration due to not breaking older routers. (This is why I would vote 'no' on the proposal.) I would also say that stating that there IS a compulsory cycleway is a first step, but not enough. To check for certain conditions (width, direction, reachable destination, obstacles, surface), the router would need to know WHICH way is the compulsory cycleway. We can either do this with a relation combining the highway and the cycleway(s) or with tags and self-created references. I would clearly prefer the first. I think neither storing all the information needed for those decissions in the highway tags
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
2013/11/14 Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com For the access tags (and we do discuss access tags here), it is common practice to have country-specific defaults on certain highway types as listed in the wiki [1] and only tag what contradicts those defaults. I'm not sure any of the current routers uses these country specific defaults. My guess is that normal roads will always be allowed for everybody except specified explicitly differently, and motorways and roads with motorroad=yes will exclude certain slow vehicles. Cycleways will allow cycling and footways walking and usually not cycling. If some country specific defaults are different and nothing is tagged, it probably won't work. Usually mappers do add default properties explicitly on roads and ways, and the more mature a region is mapped, the more of those attributes you'd usually find. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Are you proposing tagging all ways with a parallel cycleway with bicycle=use_cycleway? Sounds like it's made for mechanical edit abuse. But if you are saying that there are roads marked with bicycle=no which really do not have such a sign, then that's different. On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com wrote: Together with user Masimaster I've made a proposal for a new tag to improve bicycle routing. I think (and hope) the wiki is clear enough but I’ll say a few words about this new tag. The tag is introduced to separate 2 kinds of roads where you are not supposed to ride your bike. The first is a road with a traffic sign (bicycle icon with red edge) that makes clear it is forbidden to ride a bicycle . (common tag: bicycle=no) The second is a road that has a parallel compulsory cycleway but does not have the bicycle forbidden sign. On this type of road you’re not supposed to ride your bike but there are exeptions. Legally these 2 roads are not the same. For example.. in NL some 3 wheel bicycles with certain measurements are allowed to ride the second type of road. In other countries there is also a legal difference. For this reason we propose this new tag. Cheers PeeWee32 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
On 12 November 2013 18:16, Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com wrote: Together with user Masimaster I've made a proposal for a new tag to improve bicycle routing. I think (and hope) the wiki is clear enough but I’ll say a few words about this new tag. The tag is introduced to separate 2 kinds of roads where you are not supposed to ride your bike. I'm afraid I'm not convinced by the proposal at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle_use_cycleway . First of all, the proposal is not clear on exactly when this tag is to be applied, in some places you say it's to be used when there is a parallel compulsory cycleway, and elsewhere it says official. Then use of allowed / wise also introduces ambiguity as to whether the tag is intended only for routes where most cycling is banned on the road, or just when cyclists would generally choose not to. This needs to be clarified. (In the UK for example, we often have cycle tracks running parallel to the road. There is also an official government document called the Highway Code, which includes the clause for cyclists: Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer. It's not entirely clear from your proposal whether or not the proposal means all UK roads with parallel cycle routes should be tagged with bicycle=use_cycleway. I would presume not, but I think the proposal as written is open to interpretation.) Secondly, you mention the case of special types of bicycle eg tricycles. I would argue that if such vehicles routinely have a different legal status with respect to access rights in a particular country, then they should be given a more specific access tag key to over-ride any access tags set for bicycle. This is how we handle other access issues where certain types of vehicle are an exception. (For example, on a service road only open to buses and taxis, we would set vehicle=no, psv=yes. Here we should use something like bicycle=no, special-type-of-bicycle=yes.) Finally, I think that it is not a good idea to introduce an access tag value where the precise effect is going to vary by country and have different meanings to different people. IMO the access tags should be used to express absolute states as well as possible, rather than being subject to different interpretations in different places. Routers etc shouldn't need to know about different national laws and conventions to interpret the main tag. (This is why, for example, we tag national speed limits with a numerical maxspeed=* tag, and then provide a supplementary maxspeed:type=* tag to explain how that numerical value is derived. Or why in the UK, we tag access rights such as foot=yes in addition to the legal origin of those rights e.g. designation=public_footpath.) So I would suggest that on any roads where cycling is generally disallowed, we continue to use bicycle=no as the standard tagging. If certain sub-types of bicycle are allowed, then an additional access tag can be added to override bicycle=no for those cases. To express the legal origin of the restriction, and provide the information to routers that want it, I'd suggest adding tag along the lines of bicycle:restriction_type=DE:use_cycleway where the value comes from a country code and a table of values that list the various legal statuses that may exist in each country. This has the advantages of (a) using a backwards compatible bicycle=* value (b) allowing users/routers that don’t want to be bothered with the details of different restrictions to give a reasonable result that will be right in most cases, (c) providing a standard way to record the precise legal status of the route, (d) allowing routers that do want to be bothered with the details to implement them on a country- and law-specific basis. None of these advantages are present in the original proposal. If there are cases where it is less clear cut that cycling is generally forbidden, then maybe a more generic tag of bicycle=restricted might be better as the main tag, again in conjunction with a separate tag to identify the precise restriction that applies. (Yes this will mean the main bicycle=* tag needs to be interpreted by routers, but at least it gives them a single generic tag for you probably can't cycle here, but you need to check for details which they can use to warn end-users if the router doesn't want to work out the precise details themselves.) Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
2013/11/13 Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com Are you proposing tagging all ways with a parallel cycleway with bicycle=use_cycleway? Sounds like it's made for mechanical edit abuse. yes, that probably should be done, because there are no other established ways of doing it, beside the wrong bicycle=no on the road that some mappers decided to set. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
There are very many roads (in NL at least) marked with bicycle=no with no explicit sign. It is implicit in the fact that a parallel cycle track is marked as compulsory (blue round sign). IMHO the definition of this sign (in law) is totally screwed. It is also used for cycle tracks which are nowhere near roads. It seems to mean that I am obliged to use that cycle track even if it is going in the wrong direction for me... so it becomes rather subjective in many cases as to how mandatory it really is. It is usually regarded as applying where the main carriageway and the cycle track are the same road. If they are parallel and not too far apart (how far is this?) that's almost trivial to determine, compared to some of the incredibly complex cycle track layouts around junctions. The law in NL says that cycles wider than 75cm are not bound by the obligation to follow the mandatory cycle track and are allowed on the main carriageway; this includes trikes and some trailers (e.g. for carrying windsurfers). So why not tag the main road to reflect the width limit? bicycle:minwidth=0.75? Colin On 2013-11-13 10:10, Erik Johansson wrote: Are you proposing tagging all ways with a parallel cycleway with bicycle=use_cycleway? Sounds like it's made for mechanical edit abuse. But if you are saying that there are roads marked with bicycle=no which really do not have such a sign, then that's different. On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com wrote: Together with user Masimaster I've made a proposal for a new tag to improve bicycle routing. I think (and hope) the wiki is clear enough but I'll say a few words about this new tag. The tag is introduced to separate 2 kinds of roads where you are not supposed to ride your bike. The first is a road with a traffic sign (bicycle icon with red edge) that makes clear it is forbidden to ride a bicycle . (common tag: bicycle=no) The second is a road that has a parallel compulsory cycleway but does not have the bicycle forbidden sign. On this type of road you're not supposed to ride your bike but there are exeptions. Legally these 2 roads are not the same. For example.. in NL some 3 wheel bicycles with certain measurements are allowed to ride the second type of road. In other countries there is also a legal difference. For this reason we propose this new tag. Cheers PeeWee32 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
2013/11/13 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl The law in NL says that cycles wider than 75cm are not bound by the obligation to follow the mandatory cycle track and are allowed on the main carriageway; this includes trikes and some trailers (e.g. for carrying windsurfers). So why not tag the main road to reflect the width limit? bicycle:minwidth=0.75? that might fit for the NL, but in Germany the rules are different and more vague: you must use the cycleway if it runs along a road and is usable and is going where you are going and you are not encumbering other cyclists (i.e. big trailer). This is different from a bicycle=no on the road, there is no explicit minwidth but special conditions (like ice and snow or litter on the cycleway) might also allow you to use the road. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
In the UK there is no obligation to use a parallel cycleway, in fact I know if roads with both parallel cycleways and cyclelanes. Cycleways tend to force the cyclist to give way at ever road junction, whereas a cyclist using the road has right of way, and this is obviously preferred by many cyclists. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 13/11/2013 10:37 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/11/13 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl The law in NL says that cycles wider than 75cm are not bound by the obligation to follow the mandatory cycle track and are allowed on the main carriageway; this includes trikes and some trailers (e.g. for carrying windsurfers). So why not tag the main road to reflect the width limit? bicycle:minwidth=0.75? that might fit for the NL, but in Germany the rules are different and more vague: you must use the cycleway if it runs along a road and is usable and is going where you are going and you are not encumbering other cyclists (i.e. big trailer). This is different from a bicycle=no on the road, there is no explicit minwidth but special conditions (like ice and snow or litter on the cycleway) might also allow you to use the road. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Thanks all for your comments. I understand most of the comments made here. Most of them were discussed on the German forumhttp://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=21938(in English) and the Dutch forum http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=22151(in Dutch). I should have directed you to these links in the first place instead of just making a reference at the bottom of the Wiki. Sorry for that. I’ll get back to the most important issues/ suggestions/ approaches. Roberts remark about the word “official” is correct. I should have written “compulsory” instead. That is changed. Sorry for the confusion. I’ll add a bit more context to this proposal. The main goal is to improve routing for ordinary bikes but also for other vehicles. In NL (where I live) there is a great cycling OSM community and we have many cycleways. Routing for bicycles was not very good some years ago but when mappers started adding bicycle=no to both type1 and typ2 roads routing improved a lot. In fact I think it is almost perfect. Because I was facing poor bicycle routing in Germany I thought it would be good if German mappers would also add the bicycle=no to both type1 and type2 roads. As you can read in the linkedthreadhttp://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=21938to the German forum there were many that were not convinced that was a good idea (to put it mildly ;-) ). They convinced me. That was the reason I proposed a new tag in the NL forum. I think in general in the NL forum most understood why there should be a new tag but… the consequence of that would be that many roads with bicycle=no had to be retagged. Someone suggested that I should try and see if the German mappers would adopt this new tag. That was the reason I teamed up with German mapper Masimaster to propose the new tag. I think most mappers agree that it is not wise to just add a bicycle=no to a road that has no explicit ban for bicycles. The question is how to tag this road when there is a parallel compulsory cycleway? Instead of this bicycle=use_cycleway we could use bicycle=no an additionally a “my special vehicle/situation=yes”. There are a few reasons why I do not think this is a good idea. 1 Mapper are no legal experts In OSM we rely on mappers and not legal experts. An ordinary mapper in NL (where I live) does not know what the legal status is of many extraordinary vehicles and there are many. I have a 3 wheel velomobile with such measurements that I am allowed to ride these type 2 roads (but not the typ1). Hardly anyone I speak knows this. I’m also sure they don’t know the legal status of horse carriages, skateboards, sedgeways etc. The problem is that there are no traffic signs for all these exceptional vehicles so how should a mapper know? 2 too many tags Imagine that all special vehicles and situations would be tagged. How would we see all these tags in the editor. I’m afraid it would be a complete mess in OSM. Simply to many tags so we loose overview which might scare mappers away. 3 Changing law needs changing tags Imagine that in NL law would change in such a way that groups of race-cyclist of more then 10 are allowed to use the type2 way. Then this would have to be mapped. Who is going to do this? If we would have the bicycle=use_cycleway nothing had to be changed. I think we have to be carefull with mapping legal access in OSM unless the traffic signs are obvious. In fact I think that if we map in such a way that we (and routers) know what traffic sings are present, routing for any vehicle should be fairly easy. 4 country specific All the exceptional vehicles and situations vary from country to country. Imagine tags like “three wheel bicycle wider then .75m=yes” in NL and “three wheel bicycle with combuston engine 250Watt=yes” in an other coutry. This is just going to be too much for most mappers. I would not start mapping these exceptions abroad because I just don’t know all legal aspects. In short: Mapping this way will never happen in such an extend that it will improve routing for bicycles (both ordinary and exceptional ones) . So all this made me feel it was an illusion to improve bicycle routing by adding different tags for all these exceptional vehicles/situations. This could work in theory but it simply will never work in practice So, it had to be as simple a possible. Something any mapper could see in reality based on traffic signs and roads and cycleways. That’s the reason why we have added a definition of the tag. Bicycle=use_cycleway means: This is a road with a classification that allows cyclinghttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Germany *without* a bicycle forbidden sign *with* a parallel compulsary cycleway on which you are supposed to ride your ordinary bicycle. I hope this gives more context and explains why we’ve come up with this tag. Cheers PeeWee 2013/11/13 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk In the UK there is no
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Am 13.11.2013, 10:28 Uhr, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2013/11/13 Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com Are you proposing tagging all ways with a parallel cycleway with bicycle=use_cycleway? Sounds like it's made for mechanical edit abuse. yes, that probably should be done, because there are no other established ways of doing it, beside the wrong bicycle=no on the road that some mappers decided to set. We talk about the correct tagging here. Not about a mechanical edit, it could be a question in the future. But mechanical edit will not work in this case. How do you select the roads with a compulsory cycleway, or roads with the bicycle-forbidden-sign. That's the problem of tagging different things with the same tag! :( -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
On 13 November 2013 09:20, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: Secondly, you mention the case of special types of bicycle eg tricycles. I would argue that if such vehicles routinely have a different legal status with respect to access rights in a particular country, then they should be given a more specific access tag key to over-ride any access tags set for bicycle. This is how we handle other access issues where certain types of vehicle are an exception. (For example, on a service road only open to buses and taxis, we would set vehicle=no, psv=yes. Here we should use something like bicycle=no, special-type-of-bicycle=yes.) Finally, I think that it is not a good idea to introduce an access tag value where the precise effect is going to vary by country and have different meanings to different people. IMO the access tags should be used to express absolute states as well as possible, rather than being subject to different interpretations in different places. Routers etc shouldn't need to know about different national laws and conventions to interpret the main tag. (This is why, for example, we tag national speed limits with a numerical maxspeed=* tag, and then provide a supplementary maxspeed:type=* tag to explain how that numerical value is derived. Or why in the UK, we tag access rights such as foot=yes in addition to the legal origin of those rights e.g. designation=public_footpath.) I'm not sure though if this is the best approach in the long run. In the Netherlands, segways, rollerblades, and skateboards are allowed on bike paths. In Austria, segways and rollerblades are allowed on bike paths, but skateboards are not. In Germany, segways are allowed on bike paths, but rollerblades and skateboards are not. Do we really want to tag every German path where there is a bicycle sign with segway=yes, rollerblade=no, skateboard=no? And possible a much longer list of vehicles that are treated as pedestrians under one legislation but as bikes somewhere else? Also, if the law changes, for example to include or exclude Segways, we would need to change all tags, even though nothing has changed on the ground. In the long run, I think it would be good if routers will be aware of the jurisdiction a road is in, and then derive the implications of a bike=no sign for other types of vehicles. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
On 13 November 2013 23:06, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote: In the Netherlands, segways, rollerblades, and skateboards are allowed on bike paths. In Austria, segways and rollerblades are allowed on bike paths, but skateboards are not. In Germany, segways are allowed on bike paths, but rollerblades and skateboards are not. Do we really want to tag every German path where there is a bicycle sign with segway=yes, rollerblade=no, skateboard=no? And possible a much longer list of vehicles that are treated as pedestrians under one legislation but as bikes somewhere else? Also, if the law changes, for example to include or exclude Segways, we would need to change all tags, even though nothing has changed on the ground. In the long run, I think it would be good if routers will be aware of the jurisdiction a road is in, and then derive the implications of a bike=no sign for other types of vehicles. In which case,I don't think the already well-established access tags are what you should be using for this. bicycle=no means you can't ride a bicycle along here, not there's a no cycling sign that also has other implications for different classes of user. If someone (additionally or alternatively) wants to tag that a certain way has a certain (most likely) country-specific status that implies certain access restrictions on it, then it would be better to use different tags for this. This way the ordinary access tags keep their usual standard international meaning, and so can be used by routers etc that are not aware of the specific rules. If people choose not to explicitly tag segway=yes, that's fine, there will just be no explicit information about segway use on that way. If there's a different tag specifying that it's an official German Cycleway, then routers that are aware of what that means can derive all the associated access rights from that. (In the UK, we use designation=* for certain special classes of public right of way. Though many people will also add the associated access tags that implies, presumably in part because most routers aren't currently aware of how to interpret the designation tags.) In short, I don't see why you can't tag the roads you're talking about with bicycle=no (or maybe something like bicycle=restricted for the cases where more significant use is allowed) and then add a second tag along the lines of bicycle:restriction=DE:use_cycleway to capture the fact that the legal exclusion of bikes is because of X country's parallel cycleway rules. There's no need to add half-a-dozen extra access tags if you don't want to. Routers that aren't aware of the specific rules will get things right most of the time without needing any adjustment. Routers that are aware of the rules will have a specific tag to look for that allows them to apply the right rules for that stretch of road. Not only is more information captured with this scheme, if the legal implications of DE:use_cycleway change at any point, there's a convenient key to use for any automated changing / checking of the access tags that is desired. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
On 13 November 2013 23:53, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 November 2013 23:06, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote: In which case,I don't think the already well-established access tags are what you should be using for this. bicycle=no means you can't ride a bicycle along here, not there's a no cycling sign that also has other implications for different classes of user. If someone (additionally or alternatively) wants to tag that a certain way has a certain (most likely) country-specific status that implies certain access restrictions on it, then it would be better to use different tags for this. Yes, that solution would be perfectly fine with me. I just wanted to state that specifically stating all access restrictions for all types of vehicles might be tedious. In short, I don't see why you can't tag the roads you're talking about with bicycle=no (or maybe something like bicycle=restricted for the cases where more significant use is allowed) and then add a second tag along the lines of bicycle:restriction=DE:use_cycleway to capture the fact that the legal exclusion of bikes is because of X country's parallel cycleway rules. That's basically what I proposed yesterday :). -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
2013/11/12 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com Pee Wee A couple of questions. How does this improve mapping/routing over using bicycle=no? For an ordinary bike I do not think that routing will differ from the situation where we would tag all these type 2 way's with a bicycle-no . The problem is that there are many mappers that do not think it is wise to add a bicycle=no on a road that has no explicit ban for bicycles. And they do have a point because there are many exceptions. On the DE forum there's been a discussion http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=21938about this (in english). The new tag makes better routing possible for all these exeptions without tags like my special vehicle=yes or a team with more then 10 racebikes=yes etc. How does your proposal distinguish the exceptions to the rule that you gave as an example below? I'm afraid I do not understand what you mean. Could you give an example? Cheers Dave F. On 12/11/2013 18:16, Pee Wee wrote: Legallythese 2 roads are not the same. For example.. in NL some 3 wheelbicycles with certain measurements are allowed to ride the second type of road.In other countries there is also a legal difference. For this reason we propose this new tag. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor openstreetmaphttp://www.openstreetmap.nl/. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
On 12 November 2013 19:04, Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com wrote: If I understand correctly you're saying that the combination of a bicycle=no bicycle:use_cycleway=yes could mean the same thing as the proposed tag. Exactly. I think it could but I'm not realy in favour of this. The main reason is that I prefer a bicycle= tag so there are no contradicting options possible and things get clear in just 1 tag. What if a road would be tagged with a bicycle=yes bicycle:use_cycleway=yes. What information would this give to a router? That's indeed a disadvantage. I don't understand what kind of problems routers/renderers whould have. Could you explain a little. Remember that most roads for which this new tag is introduced do not have a bicycle= tag yet. (with the exeption of NL) I mean that not all renderers and routers might (immediately) support the new tag if it is accepted. With the bicycle=no bicycle:use_cycleway=yes scheme, routers will not send bicycles over illegal roads, even if they do not support the bicycle:use_cycleway=yes tag. With bicycle=use_cycleway, if a router doesn't know that tag, the router will route bikes over the road. By the way, have you discussed this proposal in the Dutch community (for example on the Dutch forum)? It might be good to also do that, because the Dutch community will probably make most use of this proposal. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Hi all, I'm the co-author of this proposal. There are a difference about bicycle-forbidden and a compulsory cycleway. At a bicycle forbidden section cycling is not allowed ever. At a road with a compulsory cycleway, it is allowed to cycle on the road, if the cycleway is not passable, reachable or some other exceptions. Example: http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~peewee32/use_cycleway/Bicycle_use_cycleway.htm?map=cyclewayszoom=18lat=51.10724lon=7.38169layers=B0FFFTFFF With bicycle=no the secondary is not reachable. With bicycle=use_cycleway a router can give those roads a lower factor. In Germany it is allowed to leave the cycleway for a leftturn, if you choose the normal leftturn-lane (which cars use). Or in Austria training with a racebike is allowed to don't look after compulsory cycleway. I.e. for the last case the router can give you an option to allow bicycle=use_cycleway-roads. We can't wait until all router add this tag, because they would say: we pay heed to this tag, because is not common. Cheers Masi (MasiMaster) Am 12.11.2013, 19:29 Uhr, schrieb Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: Pee Wee A couple of questions. How does this improve mapping/routing over using bicycle=no? How does your proposal distinguish the exceptions to the rule that you gave as an example below? Cheers Dave F. On 12/11/2013 18:16, Pee Wee wrote: Legallythese 2 roads are not the same. For example.. in NL some 3 wheelbicycles with certain measurements are allowed to ride the second type of road.In other countries there is also a legal difference. For this reason we propose this new tag. ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Even I am not Pee Wee nor any author of the proposal, but Am 12.11.2013 19:29, schrieb Dave F.: How does this improve mapping/routing over using bicycle=no? How does your proposal distinguish the exceptions to the rule that you gave as an example below? consider a muscular trike, which is clearly classified as a bike and not allowed to ride where there is a sign No bicycle. The user/router knows, that this trike is not allowed or has to avoid simple cycleways - so the router has to use roads instead. But the 'normal' road has a strict bicycle=no now without the sign. Where shall he ride then? Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
