<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>Am 26.12.2014 um 09:39 schrieb <a href="mailto:tagging-request@openstreetmap.org">tagging-request@openstreetmap.org</a>:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 08:15:29 +0100<br>From: Pee Wee <<a href="mailto:piewie32@gmail.com">piewie32@gmail.com</a>><br>To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span><<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs.<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>optional<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>cycletracks)<br>Message-ID:<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span><<a href="mailto:CAPx7Go6oauavAJaKevHJfTzxO263v8eQ9imYe=bEkpSg39rXUA@mail.gmail.com">CAPx7Go6oauavAJaKevHJfTzxO263v8eQ9imYe=bEkpSg39rXUA@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br><br>First of all my compliments for seeking the opinions of the tagging mailing<br>list and your effort to improve OSM.<br><br>Here are my 2 cents<br><br><br><br>1 Why does OSM need to distinguish between obligatory and optional cycle<br>ways?<br><br>As a cyclist myself I can see some reasons why it could be useful for<br>routers and/or renderers. I think the proposal would improve if this was<br>explained a little further. (add some use cases for example)<br></span></blockquote>Youself have done huge efforts to establish bicycle=use_sidepath as a help for routers.</div><div>It is a good tag.</div><div>But OSM database is not only food for the router.</div><div>The feature is worth to be rendered for two purposes:</div><div>• Some cyclists prefer autonomous and intelligent routing (by their own brain) to automatic routing. </div><div>• At least in France, Austria and Germany, obligatory cycletracks are subject of long and intensive political disputes. The traffic laws of these states provide both possibilities, but there is a great variation of local usage. For instance, Münster and Bremen have similar cycling infrastructure, but in Münster more than 75% of the cycletracks are obligatory, whereas in Bremen more than 75% are optional.<blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><br>2 Obligatory/optional for who?<br><br>When I see these words I think of means of transportation rather than types<br>of “highways”. In NL a cycleway can be obligatory for : bicycles, mopeds,<br>mofas, pedestrians. So when I see cycleway=obligatory I wonder for whom?<br></span></blockquote>If there is a sidewalk beside the cycletrack, it is always obligatory for pedestrians.</div><div>If there is a shared foot- and cycleway, it is always obligatory for pedestrians, too.</div><div><br></div><div>I prefer slim tagging, we should map a lot of features, but without describing each feature with a complicated combination of tags.</div><div>This way, I'd prefer (and soon shall suggest) a special class highway=foot_cycleway beside footway, cycleway and path.</div><div>If you research the lists of traffic signs of several European countries, yo see that shared foot- and cycleways are an international feature.</div><div>Fiets-en-bromfiets-paden are a special Dutch feature, indeed. I won't object to a special class highway=moped_cycleway.</div><div><br></div><div>Some features have to be dealt with as national standards. But rules that are very similar in several coutries ought to be described exactly AND slim by the same tags. <blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><br><br>3 Legislation varies country to country and is not clear to all mappers.<br><br>During the discussions on the bicycle=use_sidepath tag I noticed that the<br>word “compulsory/obligatory” has a different meaning in different<br>countries. Also many people (including mappers) don’t know exactly what the<br>difference is between optional and obligatory cycle ways.<br></span></blockquote> If we look at this British explanation</div><div><a href="http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/40/article15.html">http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/40/article15.html</a></div><div>it is obvious that there are two regulations that may be strict or only advisory.</div><div><br></div><div>On the question if car may use cycling spaces, i'd prefer the term "reserved",</div><div>according to the French term "piste ou band cyclable conseillée et réservée" for optional cycling facilities.</div><div>In the same way, optional cycletracks in Germany, despite the absence of signs, are reserved for cyclists.<br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><br><br><br>4 Is the “traffic_sign=* “ an alternative?<br><br>In many counties the difference between the 2 types derives from traffic<br>signs. In NL we have 3 types of traffic signs for cycle ways. 1 is optional<br>and the other 2 are obligatory (for ordinary bicycles). On this map in my<br>area<br><<a href="http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~peewee32/traffic_sign/traffic_sign.htm?map=cycleways&zoom=13&lat=52.15621&lon=5.46077&layers=B0000FFFFFFFFTTTFFFFFFFFFFFFF">http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~peewee32/traffic_sign/traffic_sign.htm?map=cycleways&zoom=13&lat=52.15621&lon=5.46077&layers=B0000FFFFFFFFTTTFFFFFFFFFFFFF</a>>you<br>can see the differences between the 3. (please wait for overpass query to<br>render)<br></span></blockquote>I do not generally object to the mapping of traffic signs, but on this feature I don't consider it a reasonable alternative:</div><div>• The same traffic sign (such as the rectangular blue sign with a white biycyle for optional cycleways in France and Austria) always has to be noted with different codes from country to country.</div><div>• A graphically very different sign may have the same meaning (Dutch "fietspad") </div><div><br></div><div>I think, rendering should distinguish what is really different (A Czech "cyklopiktokoridor" is part of a shared lane and NO suggestriestrook. A German "schutzstreifen" is neither a "suggestiestrook" nor a shared lane), but cycling facilities of several countries that are almost identical ought to be rendered in with the same signature. And that affords international tagging.</div><div><br></div><div>Now I prefer to cycle in the Xmas sun :)</div><div><br></div><div>Ulrich <br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><br><br><br>Cheers<br><br>PeeWee32<br><br>2014-12-22 2:20 GMT+01:00 Ulrich Lamm <<a href="mailto:ulamm.brem@t-online.de">ulamm.brem@t-online.de</a>>:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Hi all,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">cycleway=optional.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Now I hope for your comments.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Ulrich</blockquote></span></blockquote></div><br></body></html>