Herbert, Having a look at your selection clauses below, the node and relation are probably not required. You may also want to look at way["highway"="cycleway"] and way["bicycle"="designated"] (regardless of highway type)
I have also used styling so you can quickly see what the issues (real or otherwise) you had with the first query. You can use https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MQv and work from there. If you identify one or two particular ways and explain why you think they are incorrect we can have a look at those individually. Regards Ewen On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 15:09, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au < [email protected]> wrote: > There are almost no paths in the ACT compliant with Australian Tagging > Guidelines and ACT law. You can visualise these for yourself. The script > should turn up thousands of hits but there are almost none. > Try this overpass turbo script. > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MQp > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > Am Samstag, 28. September 2019 00:02 schrieb Herbert.Remi < > [email protected]>: > > # Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law > I hope you can help. > (If you open this plain text post to a markdown editor it will be fully > formated. I recommend Typora.) > Abbreviation: ATG - Australian Tagging Guidelines > > ## The Issue > The way you use a map changes the way you see it. I am very interested in > cycling. I am interested in capturing the information for cyclable paths so > that maps can be made for all types of biking, including MTBs. > > The situation for OSM in the ACT for cyclists is unfortunate. The paths > you are allowed to ride with a bike are completely inconsistently tag. The > cause is no logical inconsistency between the ATG, the editor presets, the > standard rendering practice, and finally the many ways creative mappers > have tried to solve the problem in the last decade. > > The last is tragic and frustrating as mappers continually undo other > mappers work and redo the tags their own preferred way. Over time, the path > tagging does not improve but across the ACT become increasingly randomise. > Where the congested areas it happens most often. The paths in Commonwealth > Park on Lake Burley Griffin has been retagged over and over again, many > times each year. Some paths alternate regularly between the footpath and > bike path preset, even though neither applies in the ACT according to the > ATG. ☹ > > ### Table of ID Editor presents, path types and rendering for each > environment > | ID preset | Correct in the > ACT | tagging | > ID editor line style | Mapnik line style | > | --------------------------------------------------- | > ------------------------- | > ------------------------------------------------------------ | > -------------------- | ----------------- | > | ATG and ACT law (Path shows as the preset symbol) | Legal default > path type | highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated > segregated=no | grey/brown dotted | blue dotted | > | cycle path | > No | > highway=cycleway | blue > dotted | blue dotted | > | cycle and foot path | No but > close | highway=cycleway bicycle=designated > foot=designated | blue dotted | blue dotted | > | foot path | > No | > highway=footway | grey > dotted | red dotted | > | cycle ONLY – no preset | Yes > (rare) | highway=path bicycle=designated > foot=no | grey/brown dotted | blue dotted | > | pedestrian ONLY – no preset | Yes > (rare) | highway=path bicycle=no > foot=designated | grey/brown dotted | red dotted > | > > Finally, I suggest one simplified way of path tagging for the ACT at the > bottom of this text. > > QUESTION > **What is the best way to restore consistency across the OSM data set for > the ACT?** > > ## Most commonly used keys > These keys are for bike and footpaths: highway, foot, bicycle, footway, > segregated. The tags used in the ACT OSM maps in all combinations are found > below. The tags foot=no or bicycle =no is only correct when the path is > signed that way for segregated paths and very few have been built. The key > footway is used more commonly in the south of Canberra and seldom used in a > way which is consistent with the ATG or ACT law, further increasing the > inconsistency. > > Any of the following combinations of highway, foot, bicycle, footway, and > segregated can be found in the ACT. > * segregated=no/yes > * highway=path/footway/cycleway > * foot=designated/yes/blank/no > * bicycle= designated/yes/blank/no > * footway=sidewalk OR missing > > ## The ATG says > Under ACT law, both pedestrian and cyclists are both allowed to use the > “footpath”. Here is the relevant section of the ATG. > “If bicycles are permitted by law then use highway=path. > **Do not use highway=footway unless bicycles are expressly prohibited from > using that path.**” > Pedestrian ONLY paths are very rare in the ACT. > > What is ALSO very rare in the ACT is bike ONLY path, which the ATG calls > the “Australian Cycle Path (bicycle-only sign, pedestrians prohibited)”, > and the properly separated shared paths, which the ATG calls "Australian > Separated Footpath (bicycle and pedestrian separated by a line)”. The total > length of paths of these types in the ACT would be in the order of 10-20km. > > ## Most common types of ridable paths in the ACT > ### Type A > Common: “Australian Shared Path (bicycle and pedestrian sign)” - 329km in > 2012. > The ATG says the tags should be: > * highway=path > * foot=designated > * bicycle=designated > * segregated=no > > ### Type B > Under ACT law, pedestrian and cyclists are both allowed to use any > “footpath”. A "footpath" is any unsigned path separated from the road. > There were more than 2000km of these "footpaths" in the ACT in 2012. > Conclusion: in the ACT, almost all “footpaths” are effectively shared. > * highway=path > * foot=designated > * bicycle=designated > * segregated=no > > Type A and type B paths cannot be distinguished from each other with these > tags alone. In real life the path markings and signage should help you > distinguish the two. Generally, path markings and signage are not in OSM. > > ## Concluding remarks to paths types in the ACT > There are effective three paths types in the ACT. The ATG recommend Type A > and Type B paths are tagged the same way and are 99% or paved, ridable > paths in the ACT. I will simply refer to them as the DEFAULT type. > > Here is a simple way of changing the default, to the bicycle-only or > pedestrian-only path type. Only one tag needs to be changed for > corrections. It does not require you to use a preset. > > | key | DEFAULT | Pedestrians ONLY | Cyclists ONLY | > | ---------- | -------------- | ---------------- | -------------- | > | highway | path | path | path | > | foot | **designated** | **designated** | no | > | bicycle | **designated** | no | **designated** | > | segregated | no | | | > > I welcome your comment. 😊 > Keywords: Australia, ACT, highway, foot, bicycle, footway, segregated, ID > editor, The Issue, Mapnik > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -- Warm Regards Ewen Hill Internet Development Australia
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
