<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Hello everyone.<br>
<br>
I'm in the process of creating a cycle road map of the Stavanger
region in Norway. One of the desirable outcomes of that process is
to be able to show the various forms of cycle roads that we have,
and to visually illustrate how much of each we have, and where we
have them. To accomplish this, the OSM data in the region has needed
a lot of cleaning up to accurately reflect what is on the ground,
since tagging practices appear to have changed over time, and have
been (and probably still are) implemented inconsistently between
contributors.<br>
<br>
There is one remaning issue that I'm currently trying to resolve in
the Norwegian OSM forum, but participation is low, so I thought I'd
raise the issue in a broader scope.<br>
<br>
We share common legal definitions of cycle roads with much of
Europe, in that we have cycleways designated for cycling, that are
legally accessible to pedestrians, and combined cycle and footways
that are designated for both groups. Cycleways may or may not have a
sidewalk for pedestrians, and may or may not have separated lanes.<br>
<br>
Pedestrians are compelled in the Norwegian highway code to use
footways, sidewalks, or the road's shoulder, except when or where
that wouldn't be possible, practical, or safe. In these cases
pedestrians may use cycleways, cycle lanes or carriageways (cycleway
and carriageway in this context meaning the part of the road meant
for regular vehicle traffic, so not including the hard or soft
shoulder).<br>
<br>
The current tagging standard (per <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/No:Map_Features">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/No:Map_Features</a>)
is to tag a combined cycle and footway with highway=cycleway +
foot=designated. A cycleway with a sidewalk is tagged
highway=cycleway + foot=designated + segregated=yes +
sidewalk=left/right. A cycleway with no sidewalk is tagged
highway=cycleway + foot=no/discouraged. There's a parenthesis saying
foot=no/discouraged applies if the cycleway is not intended for
pedestrians.<br>
<br>
The strict interpretation of this standard is that highway=cycleway
by itself denotes a cycleway, designated for cycling, where
pedestrians have legal right of access. The feedback from the few
participating Norwegian OSM forum users, however, is that any
highway=cycleway should be regarded as a combined cycle and
footway,with reference to how most people and OSM contributors are
not aware of the differences between the various types of road. This
approach requires foot=no/discouraged for a road to be a regarded as
a cycleway proper.<br>
<br>
I would like to hear any opinions from the OSM community on the
issues below.<br>
<br>
<u>Tagging foot=no<br>
<br>
</u>The highway code explicitly allows pedestrians the use of
cycleways and carriageways when or where they find that it is not
possible, practical, or safe to use a different road or the road's
shoulder. It follows that foot=no can only be (correctly) applied
when there is a sign prohibiting entry for pedestrians. foot=no can
never generally be applied to cycleways as an consequence of a road
being a cycleway.<br>
<u></u><br>
<u><u>Tagging foot=discouraged<br>
</u></u> <br>
The legal basis is debatable, but not completely unreasonable.
Pedestrians are not explicitly discouraged from using cycleways, and
certainly not in the sense that the OSM wiki presents the definition
of *=discouraged. But if one chooses to interpret the highway code
that way, pedestrians are equally discouraged from using
carriageways. It follows that this interpretation of pedestrians
being discouraged from using a road is derived from the type of
road.<br>
<br>
Tagging foot=discouraged on a highway=cycleway in this scenario
would be optional, explicit, and redundant, and equally so tagging
foot=discouraged on every
highway=trunk/primary/secondary/residential/service/unclassified.<br>
<br>
Note that in either case, using the road's (hard or soft) shoulder
is <i>always</i> <i>explicitly allowed</i> -- the only
discouraging one can possibly interpret from the highway code is
from the use of the cycleway/carriageway itself.<br>
<br>
<u>Tagging foot=no/discouraged if the cycleway is not intended for
pedestrians<br>
<br>
</u>This phrase makes sense if there is a sign prohibiting walking,
in which case the only correct tag is foot=no. In all other
situations, pedestrians are explicitly allowed access by law. Any
intentions of planners or officials are neither observable nor
verifiable.<br>
<u></u><br>
<u>foot=discouraged is required to define a cycleway in OSM</u><br>
<br>
This logic completely reverses the causality of the most open-minded
interpretation of the highway code. How can a cycleway be defined by
foot=discouraged when foot=discouraged -- at best -- follows from
the road being a cycleway or a carriageway?<br>
<br>
<u>Tagging a cycleway proper in OSM?<br>
<br>
</u>The intuitive and logical representation of a cycleway proper
would be highway=cycleway. If the Norwegian OSM community cannot
agree on this being the case, how could we tag a cycleway in a
manner that is logical, consistent, and accurate (ref the above)?<br>
<br>
Bonus question:<br>
<br>
<u>Tagging foot=designated on a cycleway with a sidewalk</u><br>
<br>
This seems to principally be the same as tagging foot=designated on
any highway=* with a sidewalk. It seems weird, and redundant, but
probably not harmful, so long as no further meaning is attributed to
or derived from the tagging?<br>
<br>
I look forward to hearing any opinions on the subject.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Jens<br>
<u></u>
</body>
</html>