<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>Aug 2, 2022, 23:42 by balchen@saint-etienne.no:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Hello everyone.<br></div><div> <br></div><div> 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></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Good luck with the project! If you produce online-viewable map - feel free to email<br></div><div dir="auto">also me!<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Note that you can produce (shown on the main map or in additional one) display<br></div><div dir="auto">of where OSM data is dubious or missing important tags and share it with a <br></div><div dir="auto">community.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You can also ask authors of QA tools to such as JOSM validator to complain<br></div><div dir="auto">in clearly dubious cases not reported already.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If some important tag is missing - you can make JOSM preset / add or request<br></div><div dir="auto">adding support in iD if not present already / propose StreetComplete quest<br></div><div dir="auto">if not eligible.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div> 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></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">This seems to not match later claim that <br></div><div dir="auto">"cycleway with no sidewalk is tagged
highway=cycleway + foot=no/discouraged"<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Is standalone cycleway without footway part accessible to pedestrians or not?<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div> The current tagging standard (per <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="" 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></div><div> <br></div><div> 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></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">I am unfamiliar with Norway and whether their foot=no/discouraged on cycleways<br></div><div dir="auto">without footway part is a good tagging or not.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Maybe it matches actual legal rules and pedestrians are actually discouraged/banned<br></div><div dir="auto">there - or maybe it is some kind of<br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Mistagging_for_the_renderer" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Mistagging_for_the_renderer</a><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But based on this description it appears that maybe highway=cycleway without<br></div><div dir="auto">further info should be treated as incomplete tagging?<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>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.<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">I do not see it from your description.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div> <br></div><div> I would like to hear any opinions from the OSM community on the
issues below.<br></div><div> <br></div><div> <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.</div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Based on info provided here it makes sense.<br></div><div dir="auto">Maybe it also makes sense if there is a cycleway and footway along each other,<br></div><div dir="auto">mapped as separate lines,<br></div><div dir="auto">like for example on this Polish footway + cycleway<br></div><div dir="auto"><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bike_road_-_panoramio_(1).jpg">https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bike_road_-_panoramio_(1).jpg</a> <br></div><div dir="auto"><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2019_Warszawa_aleje_Jerozolimskie,_chodnik_i_droga_rowerowa.jpg">https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2019_Warszawa_aleje_Jerozolimskie,_chodnik_i_droga_rowerowa.jpg</a> <u></u><br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div> <u><u>Tagging foot=discouraged<br> </u></u> </div><div> 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. <br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Then it seems wrong.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="auto">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></div><div> <br></div><div> 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></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div> 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></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">I am not really understanding this part. <br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div> <u>Tagging foot=no/discouraged if the cycleway is not intended for
pedestrians<br> </u></div><div dir="auto"><u><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></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">also, foot= is for legal access - not for whether access should be present there or<br></div><div dir="auto">what designed intended<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div> <u>foot=discouraged is required to define a cycleway in OSM</u><br></div><div> <br></div><div> 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></div><div> <br></div><div> <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></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Sadly, I am not really understanding this part.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div> Bonus question:<br></div><div> <br></div><div> <u>Tagging foot=designated on a cycleway with a sidewalk</u><br></div><div> <br></div><div> 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></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">What you mean by cycleway with sidewalk? If something like<br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Witosa_bike_2.jpg">https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Witosa_bike_2.jpg</a><br></div><div dir="auto">then foot=designated segregated=yes is an useful tagging.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It would be less useful in areas that do not have combined footway-cycleway<br></div><div dir="auto">without segregation (segregated=no) like for example this one:<br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krakow_Przegorzaly_wal_wislany.jpg">https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krakow_Przegorzaly_wal_wislany.jpg</a><br></div> </body>
</html>