<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
On 03.08.2022 11:42, Jeroen Hoek wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9fda6fde-38f9-af69-f81e-d45909034210@jeroenhoek.nl">On
03-08-2022 11:18, Jens Glad Balchen wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 03.08.2022 10:59, Jeroen Hoek wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Have a look at this typical Dutch
situation:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.google.com/maps/@53.1426041,5.7397237,3a,75y,228.33h,88.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAhezo74J5tsgo0u0mM-oNQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192">https://www.google.com/maps/@53.1426041,5.7397237,3a,75y,228.33h,88.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAhezo74J5tsgo0u0mM-oNQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192</a>
<br>
<br>
On the right, a road, on the left, a compulsory cycleway.
Dutch law says that pedestrians must use the cycleway here
(and they may walk on its hard surface), and may not use the
shoulder of the road because the (much safer) cycleway is
there. So the road gets foot=use_sidepath, and the cycleway
has no foot value (because the Dutch default access tags have
foot=yes for highway=cycleway), or foot=yes.
<br>
<br>
So you are saying that in Norway, in a case like this,
pedestrians can choose to use the shoulder of both the road
and the cycleway?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes.
<br>
<br>
There are no compulsory roads of any kind in Norway, and the
only mandate is the one for pedestrians that I quoted.
Everything else is based on explicit prohibition.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ideally, navigation tools should be able to choose the best option
based on tags present without denying access to road users who can
legally use it. In terms of tagging you can choose to simply set
foot=yes on both road and cycleway (either directly, or implied
via the default access values for Norway), and then let navigation
aids apply their own logic. Often, when faced with equally long
paths where one is highway=primary and the other is
highway=cycleway, navigation aids will penalize the primary road
for pedestrians, and choose the cycleway. Similarly, when faced
with a parallel highway=footway and highway=cycleway, pedestrian
navigation tools usually choose the footway if it is not much
longer, even if you are allowed to walk on both.
<br>
<br>
You can, potentially, further aid navigation tools by mapping
shoulder=* and/or verge=* (as appropriate) as well (in particular
where sidewalk=no). This can help navigation tools further
penalize roads that lack a hard shoulder.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The objective with this discussion is not how to tag for routing or
navigation. That seems to already be accomplished by the existing
tagging standard, and it seems to have been an overarching goal for
a long time.<br>
<br>
My objective as a map-maker is not to make a map for navigation, but
to make a map of what our roads actually are. The purpose is to let
road planners, city planners, and politicians see not just what the
city and zoning plans tell us that we should have had, but what we
actually have. When the city plan says there is a cycle network in a
particular location, and my map shows that there are no cycleways,
no combined cycleway and footways, and no cycle lanes, it will be
apparent that there is something missing. To accomplish that, I need
to be able to accurately determine what kind of road I am dealing
with.<br>
<br>
The problem, again, is that there seems to be an opinion among some
OSM contributors -- at least as regards Norway -- that any
highway=cycleway is a combined cycleway and footway unless
specficially tagged otherwise, and that I as a map-maker cannot use
highway=cycleway to conclude that a road is a signed cycleway. This
is not very clear from the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/No:Map_Features">documented
tagging standard for Norway</a>.<br>
<br>
The proposed way to circumvent "any highway=cycleway is a combined
cycleway and footway unless specficially tagged otherwise" is to tag
it with foot=no/discouraged, contrary to what the law states. This
is the crux of the issue, that we are forced to tag contrary to the
legal status just to be able to circumvent the (IMO) faulty and
illogical initial stance.<br>
<br>
Jens<br>
</body>
</html>