Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Ken Kilfedder]

> But route-finding software needs to know the legal position. Mapping 
> something as cycles-only, when in fact it can also be used on foot, will 
> break a lot of valid pedestrian routes.

Agreed.  I'm not talking about mapping/tagging for use by route-finding 
software; I'm talking about how logically-tagged ways are displayed on osm.org 
Carto style, and wishing for more types of rendering style.

---
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 12:52 PM Martin Wynne  wrote:

>
> Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually banned?
>
>
I don’t know the legal basis, but according to OSM there are plenty of
cycleways or roads from which pedestrians are banned in London:



https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/113w


As one example, where the Embankment superhighway passes the Tideway works
just up from the Hungerford bridge, pedestrians are very clearly told to
use the opposite sidewalk. Google SV:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5063194,-0.1223057,3a,26.8y,207.48h,85.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqF_1bNzLwyaHTn2LSmJFvQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Although the signs have a red background, so that may be a temporary order
(temporary as in several years’ duration).
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Mark Goodge]

On 10/12/2020 14:08, Tony Shield wrote:

/Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually banned?
/

Unfortunately yes - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/827379295

Quite clear signage - Mapillary - 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.66933432657343=-2.6290113968031967=17=_ir_HmYAIa4H0rnj1JrO8A=photo

//


Although, having said that, there's no equivalent prohibition sign when 
approaching that section from the other end. And the point where that 
cycleway crosses the M6 slip road is clearly signalled as a "Toucan" 
(pedestrians and cycles) crossing:


https://goo.gl/maps/gKBbuspimGe9ZjaAA

Since a route that you can use as a pedestrian in one direction but not 
the other would be somewhat absurd (and something that UK highway law 
makes no provision for), I'm more inclined to think that the sign at the 
Chorley end (at the intersection with Temple Way) does not, in fact, 
have legal force. It seems to me that it's more likely to be the result 
of an over-zealous highway officer getting the wrong signage installed.


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

That's weird.
Save for some tactile paving what's the difference between North & South?

DaveF

On 10/12/2020 14:08, Tony Shield wrote:
/Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually 
banned?

/

Unfortunately yes - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/827379295

Quite clear signage - Mapillary - 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.66933432657343=-2.6290113968031967=17=_ir_HmYAIa4H0rnj1JrO8A=photo

//

When I walk there I take my chances on the illegal walking along a 
cycleway rather than the 50 mph dual carriageway where it is legal to 
walk.



Tony Shield - TonyS999

.

On 10/12/2020 12:47, Martin Wynne wrote:
My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a 
greater number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2)


Many public bridleways have many more walkers and cyclists using it 
than actual horse-riders. But are still mapped as bridleways.


Map it as a cycleway, unless it is a public bridleway, in which case 
map it as bridleway. You are mapping the status, not the actual usage.


My feeling is that a highway should be mapped at the highest level of 
permitted usage. The assumption is that pedestrians can go almost 
anywhere anyway. Motorways excepted.


Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually 
banned?


cheers,

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Mark Goodge]

On 10/12/2020 16:28, Ken Kilfedder wrote:

> I think there are enough items that look and act like a cycles-only
way to make it worth having a fourth item in your hierarchy- whatever
the legal position.


But route-finding software needs to know the legal position. Mapping 
something as cycles-only, when in fact it can also be used on foot, will 
break a lot of valid pedestrian routes.


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

Just to add by the way, in a country like netherlands "cycleways" are paved 
paths dedicated to cycles. You can't walk on there because there are also 
sidewalks to walk on. E.g.:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pAL4yr927e4/maxresdefault.jpg

--  


10 Dec 2020, 14:08 by tonyo...@gmail.com:

>
> Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians areactually 
> banned? 
>
>
> Unfortunately yes - > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/827379295
>
>
> Quite clear signage - Mapillary - > 
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.66933432657343=-2.6290113968031967=17=_ir_HmYAIa4H0rnj1JrO8A=photo>
>   
>
> When I walk there I take my chances on  the illegal walking along a 
> cycleway rather than the 50 mph dual  carriageway where it is legal to 
> walk.
>
>
> Tony Shield - TonyS999
>
> .
>
> On 10/12/2020 12:47, Martin Wynne  wrote:
>
>>> My reasons for changing it, is that it isshared use path with a 
>>> greater number of people of foot thanbicycle (about 5:2) 
>>>
>>
>> Many public bridleways have many more walkers and cyclists using  it 
>> than actual horse-riders. But are still mapped as bridleways.
>>  
>>  Map it as a cycleway, unless it is a public bridleway, in which  case 
>> map it as bridleway. You are mapping the status, not the  actual usage. 
>>  
>>  My feeling is that a highway should be mapped at the highest level  of 
>> permitted usage. The assumption is that pedestrians can go  almost 
>> anywhere anyway. Motorways excepted. 
>>  
>>  Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually  
>> banned? 
>>  
>>  cheers, 
>>  
>>  Martin. 
>>  
>>  ___ 
>>  Talk-GB mailing list 
>>  >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>>  
>>  >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>>  
>>

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

Didn't know this tagging scheme existed actually. Every single path that allows 
both cycling and walking is tagged as "highway=cycleway", "foot=yes" and 
"segregated=no" in my area (as well as "footway=sidewalk" sometimes)

-- 
 


10 Dec 2020, 12:24 by epicthom...@gmail.com:

> I've reached a stalemate with another mapper about the tagging of a rural 
> shared use path. He mapped the path initially a few years ago as 
> highway=cycleway and I've recently changed it to highway=path, 
> bicycle=designated & foot=designated (as well as the other tags that apply to 
> it).
> My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a greater 
> number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2), the path is designed for 
> both types of user & not the whole route has a blacktop surface (therefore 
> not suitable for road bikes, these bits do have their surface tagged though 
> so that shouldn't be an issue for routers).
> His argument for keeping it as highway=cycleway is because his render is not 
> configured to show highway=path & bicycle=designated the same as 
> highway=cycleway. Other reasons are because it is part of the NCN Route 88, 
> as such it is "cared" for sustrans. Also it is a  well used cycle route. Both 
> of which are very much true, and are tagged with the appropriate relations to 
> reflect this.
>
> I've put this to the Data Working Group, and they have suggested that I ask 
> the community here to see what the consensus is.
> I don't mind what the outcome is, however I am not satisfied with the sole 
> reason being because it renders differently.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94598759
>
>
> Thank you,
> -- 
> T> homas > J
>

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Martin Wynne]

On 10/12/2020 14:13, John Aldridge wrote:



There'd be a whole lot less temptation to tag for the renderer, if the 
renderers rendered for the tags a bit better!


Agreed, and while we are on the subject, please can we have *tracks* 
rendered on the standard map as a double line? As they are on most maps.


Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I believe you're incorrect.

Cycleways can be shared use with pedestrians, & almost always are in the UK.

Cycleway/footway/path tags are not based on usage figures. Cycleway 
allows for two modes of transport, footway allows one.  Likewise 
'bridleway' allows for three modes - horse/bicycle/foot.


The path tag was an invention after contributors got confused by the 
above. It should be removed from the database.


Your 'surface' comment is irrelevant to your problem.

Tagging *incorrectly* to suit the renderer/router should not occur, but 
given it's a part of a NCN route, this is clearly a correct tag.


DaveF

On 10/12/2020 12:24, Thomas Jarvis wrote:

I've reached a stalemate with another mapper about the tagging of a rural
shared use path. He mapped the path initially a few years ago as
highway=cycleway and I've recently changed it to highway=path,
bicycle=designated & foot=designated (as well as the other tags that apply
to it).
My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a greater
number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2), the path is designed for
both types of user & not the whole route has a blacktop surface (therefore
not suitable for road bikes, these bits do have their surface tagged though
so that shouldn't be an issue for routers).
His argument for keeping it as highway=cycleway is because his render is
not configured to show highway=path & bicycle=designated the same as
highway=cycleway. Other reasons are because it is part of the NCN Route 88,
as such it is "cared" for sustrans. Also it is a  well used cycle route.
Both of which are very much true, and are tagged with the
appropriate relations to reflect this.

I've put this to the Data Working Group, and they have suggested that I ask
the community here to see what the consensus is.
I don't mind what the outcome is, however I am not satisfied with the sole
reason being because it renders differently.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94598759


Thank you,

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Ken Kilfedder]

 
> ...this distinction doesn't really exist in the UK. The default legal 
> position for for any public highway in the UK is that any permission for 
> any class of user also includes permission for any class of user prior 
> to that in the hierarchy, unless explicitly stated (and signed) 
> otherwise. 

I'm sure that is the legal position.  However, on the ground it's usually 
perfectly clear whether a way is a cyclepath/cyclelane or a footpath/sidewalk 
etc.   That's a separate issue to who is allowed on it.  


> [..]
> 
> Personally, I think the default OSM map render should follow that 
> hierarchy, with minor highways and paths having a three-way distinction:
> 
> pedestrians only
> pedestrians and cycles
> all vehicles

I think there are enough items that look and act like a cycles-only way to make 
it worth having a fourth item in your hierarchy- whatever the legal position.




---
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Mark Goodge]

On 10/12/2020 15:39, Phillip Barnett wrote:

“  any road that cars can use is also open to cyclists and
pedestrians ” Pedestrians? Are you sure about that? Yes, you can walk
along country roads that lack pavements, but try that in a town and
I’m pretty sure you’d get stopped quite quickly.


Legally, yes. Of course, if there is a separate footway then it would 
obviously be wiser to use it. But you are not breaking any law by 
walking in the carriageway. Unless it's a motorway or designated special 
road, with signage to explicitly indicate that pedestrians are not allowed.


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Ken Kilfedder]

Following a little research, there was a proposal in the Carto style to do 
something like my 5-point suggestion.   You can read the details here, and 
contribute (or give the 'thumbs up' upvotes to contributions you like:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1321 

---
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020, at 3:37 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 12:42, Ken Kilfedder  
> wrote:
> > highway=cycleway with nothing to say that foot is allowed - blue dashes as 
> > at present.
> > highway=footway with nothing to say bicyles are allowed - red dashes as at 
> > present.
> > highway=cycleway with foot expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line (maybe 
> > blue long dash interspersed with red short dash)
> > highway=footway with bikes expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line (maybe 
> > red long dash interspersed with blue short dash)
> > With segregated=yes - possibly, at higher zoom levels, show blue dashes in 
> > parallel with red - the right way round if possible.
> 
> Something like this would be a big step forwards IMO. "highway=footway
> with bikes expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line" this one in
> particular.
> 
> I'm with Richard
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333 , highway=path
> is meaningless. I think highway=cycleway is something designed and
> built expressly for bicycles, typically smooth, wide, signed.
> 
> Thus I'd mark a public footpath as highway=footway always, adding
> bicycle=designated if necessary (it is a footpath for pedestrians with
> added permission).
> 
> Similarly, I'd mark a sidewalk as highway=footway, footway=sidewalk,
> adding bicycle=designatedy, segregated=no if it is a shared space
> (again, it is an area for pedestrians with added rights for bicycles).
> 
> The tough case is a sidewalk with a segregated cycle lane (designed
> and built as such). I'd prefer highway=footway for all sidewalks, but
> the segregation implies highway=cycleway, segregated=yes,
> footway=sidewalk
> 
> I don't think highway=path is much use at all really.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Phillip Barnett]

“  any road that cars can use is also open to cyclists and pedestrians ”
Pedestrians? Are you sure about that? Yes, you can walk along country roads 
that lack pavements, but try that in a town and I’m pretty sure you’d get 
stopped quite quickly.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 10 Dec 2020, at 15:21, Mark Goodge  wrote:
> 
> any road that cars can use is also open to cyclists and pedestrians

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Stephen Colebourne]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 12:42, Ken Kilfedder  wrote:
> highway=cycleway with nothing to say that foot is allowed - blue dashes as at 
> present.
> highway=footway with nothing to say bicyles are allowed - red dashes as at 
> present.
> highway=cycleway with foot expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line (maybe 
> blue long dash interspersed with red short dash)
> highway=footway with bikes expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line (maybe 
> red long dash interspersed with blue short dash)
> With segregated=yes - possibly, at higher zoom levels, show blue dashes in 
> parallel with red - the right way round if possible.

Something like this would be a big step forwards IMO. "highway=footway
with bikes expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line" this one in
particular.

I'm with Richard
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333 , highway=path
is meaningless. I think highway=cycleway is something designed and
built expressly for bicycles, typically smooth, wide, signed.

Thus I'd mark a public footpath as highway=footway always, adding
bicycle=designated if necessary (it is a footpath for pedestrians with
added permission).

Similarly, I'd mark a sidewalk as highway=footway, footway=sidewalk,
adding bicycle=designatedy, segregated=no if it is a shared space
(again, it is an area for pedestrians with added rights for bicycles).

The tough case is a sidewalk with a segregated cycle lane (designed
and built as such). I'd prefer highway=footway for all sidewalks, but
the segregation implies highway=cycleway, segregated=yes,
footway=sidewalk

I don't think highway=path is much use at all really.

Stephen

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Simon Still]

> On 10 Dec 2020, at 14:13, John Aldridge  wrote:
> 
> On 12/10/2020 12:41 PM, Ken Kilfedder wrote:
>> As a break from 'tagging for the renderer', I'd like to see rendering for 
>> the tags.
> 
> A long standing grump of mine!

And mine.  I think the CycleMap render has a lot of issues with clarity.

(I’ve just gone in and removed a load of sections of road in Lambeth tagged as 
‘cycle route’ which have no route markings on the ground, do not form part of 
the current generation of C or Q routes, nor a numbered London Cycle Network 
Route (and were not on the LCN maps I have).  Also considering removing some 
other sections which may have correctly been marked as un-numbered LCN but 
which are no longer visible on the street in any way - though one does now run 
through a new Low Traffic Neighbourhood so *would* be a useful route if 
signed….) 


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Mark Goodge]

On 10/12/2020 12:41, Ken Kilfedder wrote:
As a break from 'tagging for the renderer', I'd like to see rendering 
for the tags.  It would save a lot of heartarche if the map on osm.org 
showed shared-use paths explicitly.   


I entirely agree! I think the real problem here is that the standard OSM 
render simply doesn't handle highways restricted to non-motorised users 
very well at all, and hence there's a strong incentive to people to 
modify the tags to try and workaround that issue.


However...

Perhaps as follows:-


  * highway=cycleway with nothing to say that foot is allowed - blue
dashes as at present.
  * highway=footway with nothing to say bicyles are allowed - red dashes
as at present.
  * highway=cycleway with foot expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line
(maybe blue long dash interspersed with red short dash)
  * highway=footway with bikes expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line
(maybe red long dash interspersed with blue short dash)
  * With segregated=yes - possibly, at higher zoom levels, show blue
dashes in parallel with red - the right way round if possible.


...this distinction doesn't really exist in the UK. The default legal 
position for for any public highway in the UK is that any permission for 
any class of user also includes permission for any class of user prior 
to that in the hierarchy, unless explicitly stated (and signed) 
otherwise. The hierarchy in question being:


pedestrians
cyclists
horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles
motor vehicles

So any cycleway in the UK is also a footway, unless pedestrians are 
explicitly prohibited, and any road that cars can use is also open to 
cyclists and pedestrians (unless, again, they are explicitly prohibited, 
such as on motorways). There's certainly no general legal distinction 
between a cycleway that allows pedestrians and a footway that allows 
cycles - they are both, in law, exactly the same, and are both in law, a 
shared-use path. Even a segregated shared-use path is still legally 
usable across its entire width by pedestrians, even if that's typically 
discouraged.


Personally, I think the default OSM map render should follow that 
hierarchy, with minor highways and paths having a three-way distinction:


pedestrians only
pedestrians and cycles
all vehicles

(I'd disregard horses in this context, although tagging bridleways in 
rural areas would still be useful and it would be helpful to have that 
indicated somehow on the default render).


I think that would solve the issue here, and prevent a lot of anonymous 
notes.


Anyone know off hand where/how to propose this?  Or even willing to help 
on coding up a demo?


Another issue here is that the default OSM map render is intended to be 
global, but other countries don't necessarily have the same highway 
hierarchy as the UK. In some countries, cycleways that pedestrians are 
prohibited from using may be the norm (I have a feeling that is the case 
in The Netherlands, for example). This is one of the reasons why I think 
that the default render ought to be location-aware, in order to reflect 
different highway laws in different places.


But, also, it's a good reason to press on with creating a specifically 
UK stylesheet, so that OSM on a .uk domain looks different to that on a 
.org domain, with the former being styled to match British practice.


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[John Aldridge]

On 12/10/2020 12:41 PM, Ken Kilfedder wrote:
As a break from 'tagging for the renderer', I'd like to see rendering 
for the tags.


A long standing grump of mine!

We see lots of excellent effort put in to designing tagging schemes 
which could support a wide variety of applications, but rather little 
into creating those applications themselves, most especially 
consumer-directed maps.


As it is, the conversation typically goes

   Please don't tag for the renderer!

   Oh, sorry, how do I get The Map to look right then?

   You don't, The Map is intended for map creators, not end users

   Eh?

   But it's no problem, you can create your own map on your own server
   which renders however you want it to. All you need is a degree in
   computer science.

In fact, various people have bravely done this, but (a) you can't find 
those maps because they're not indexed from the OSM or OSMUK pages, (b) 
they sometimes don't cover the whole country, (c) they run on 
underpowered hardware, and (d) oh, that map worked last year, but it's 
gone missing now.


There'd be a whole lot less temptation to tag for the renderer, if the 
renderers rendered for the tags a bit better!


I appear to be in a grumpy mood today. Sorry! I love OSM really :)

John

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Tony Shield]

/Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually banned?
/

Unfortunately yes - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/827379295

Quite clear signage - Mapillary - 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.66933432657343=-2.6290113968031967=17=_ir_HmYAIa4H0rnj1JrO8A=photo

//

When I walk there I take my chances on the illegal walking along a 
cycleway rather than the 50 mph dual carriageway where it is legal to walk.



Tony Shield - TonyS999

.

On 10/12/2020 12:47, Martin Wynne wrote:
My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a 
greater number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2)


Many public bridleways have many more walkers and cyclists using it 
than actual horse-riders. But are still mapped as bridleways.


Map it as a cycleway, unless it is a public bridleway, in which case 
map it as bridleway. You are mapping the status, not the actual usage.


My feeling is that a highway should be mapped at the highest level of 
permitted usage. The assumption is that pedestrians can go almost 
anywhere anyway. Motorways excepted.


Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually 
banned?


cheers,

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Martin Wynne]

My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a greater 
number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2)


Many public bridleways have many more walkers and cyclists using it than 
actual horse-riders. But are still mapped as bridleways.


Map it as a cycleway, unless it is a public bridleway, in which case map 
it as bridleway. You are mapping the status, not the actual usage.


My feeling is that a highway should be mapped at the highest level of 
permitted usage. The assumption is that pedestrians can go almost 
anywhere anyway. Motorways excepted.


Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually banned?

cheers,

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Ken Kilfedder]

As a break from 'tagging for the renderer', I'd like to see rendering for the 
tags.  It would save a lot of heartarche if the map on osm.org showed 
shared-use paths explicitly.   Perhaps as follows:-
 * highway=cycleway with nothing to say that foot is allowed - blue dashes as 
at present.
 * highway=footway with nothing to say bicyles are allowed - red dashes as at 
present.
 * highway=cycleway with foot expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line (maybe 
blue long dash interspersed with red short dash)
 * highway=footway with bikes expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line (maybe 
red long dash interspersed with blue short dash)
 * With segregated=yes - possibly, at higher zoom levels, show blue dashes in 
parallel with red - the right way round if possible.
I think that would solve the issue here, and prevent a lot of anonymous notes.

Anyone know off hand where/how to propose this?  Or even willing to help on 
coding up a demo?

---
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk


On Thu, 10 Dec 2020, at 12:24 PM, Thomas Jarvis wrote:
> I've reached a stalemate with another mapper about the tagging of a rural 
> shared use path. He mapped the path initially a few years ago as 
> highway=cycleway and I've recently changed it to highway=path, 
> bicycle=designated & foot=designated (as well as the other tags that apply to 
> it).
> My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a greater 
> number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2), the path is designed for 
> both types of user & not the whole route has a blacktop surface (therefore 
> not suitable for road bikes, these bits do have their surface tagged though 
> so that shouldn't be an issue for routers).
> His argument for keeping it as highway=cycleway is because his render is not 
> configured to show highway=path & bicycle=designated the same as 
> highway=cycleway. Other reasons are because it is part of the NCN Route 88, 
> as such it is "cared" for sustrans. Also it is a  well used cycle route. Both 
> of which are very much true, and are tagged with the appropriate relations to 
> reflect this.
> 
> I've put this to the Data Working Group, and they have suggested that I ask 
> the community here to see what the consensus is.
> I don't mind what the outcome is, however I am not satisfied with the sole 
> reason being because it renders differently.
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94598759
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> -- 
> *_T_*homas *_J_*
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Andy Townsend]

On 10/12/2020 12:24, Thomas Jarvis wrote:

(snipped)

I've put this to the Data Working Group, and they have suggested that 
I ask the community here to see what the consensus is.
I don't mind what the outcome is, however I am not satisfied with the 
sole reason being because it renders differently.


... actually I got a PM about this; I hadn't realised it was intended as 
a DWG question!


For completeness, the bits of my reply that were the answer to the 
question were as follows:


   Around the world people use both of these taggings, and often
   renderers will render them the same.

   In the UK, something like I imagine
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/582204090/history
    to be would
   typically be tagged “cycleway” even though it’s shared-use; in
   Germany it’d be typically “path”. Someone once did a bit of mailing
   list archaeology about the origins of “highway=path” within OSM (it
   wasn’t one of the original ones) and there are a couple of theories
   about where it came from.

   Some people have strong views on this - for example
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333
    .

(and in answer to the renderer question)

   Indeed, “how it renders in a particular renderer” is rarely a good
   reason to tag something a particular way.

   However, it doesn’t look from
   http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=582204090
    that the status
   quo here was “cycleway” before you changed it, so I’d probably lean
   that way.

Best Regards,

Andy



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb