<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>Disclaimer: I know almost nothing about Norway.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Aug 3, 2022, 10:15 by balchen@saint-etienne.no:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Hi Mateusz. Thank you for responding.<br></div><div> <br></div><div> On 03.08.2022 09:16, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: <br></div><blockquote type="cite"><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></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That would be very useful, since it seems at least the iD editor at
the moment enforces a different taggging standard from the
documented tagging standard at<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>.<br></div><div> <br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">note that OSM Wiki can also be wrong!<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">the proper place to report problems in iD tagging presets is in general<br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema">https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema</a><br></div><div dir="auto">(may be reported already)<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div> <br></div><blockquote type="cite"><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><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></blockquote><div><br></div><div>These two claims are about two completely different things. The
first claim is about the legal status, whereas the second claim is
about the tagging standard at<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>. <br></div><div> <b>This is the very heart of the issue that I am raising -- that the
tagging standard <i>does not reflect the legal status.</i></b><br></div><div> <br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">that is bad and should be avoided<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div> <br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="auto">Is standalone cycleway without footway part
accessible to pedestrians or not?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It is, by law. <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="" href="https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/1986-03-21-747">https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/1986-03-21-747</a>, ยง 19,
auto-translated:<br></div><div> <br></div><div> "Pedestrians must use the footpath, pavement or shoulder of the
road. Is it not reasonable because of the speed etc. or possible to
do this, pedestrians can use cycle paths, cycle lanes or
carriageways."<br></div><div> <br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">then if not signed otherwise, foot=no or foot=discouraged is wrong <br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><blockquote type="cite"><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></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If that is the conclusion, which tag would we add to complete it?
foot=no/discouraged is wrong by law. What else?<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">based on description I would use<br></div><div dir="auto">segregated=no foot=yes<br></div><div dir="auto">if pedestrians are always allowed to use it. But I am definitely missing something h<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>If you have a road that is signed as a cycleway (with no pedestrian
sidewalk), how would we tag that in a way that allows us to later
recognise from the tagging that "this is a signed cycleway with no
sidewalk", and not "this is a signed combined cycleway and footway".
<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">In Poland "this is a signed cycleway with no
part for pedestrians" gets<br></div><div dir="auto">foot=yes bicycle=designated highway=path segregated=no<br></div><div dir="auto">or<br></div><div dir="auto">foot=yes highway=cycleway segregated=no<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">And "this is a signed combined cycleway and footway" gets<br></div><div dir="auto">foot=designated bicycle=designated highway=path segregated=no<br></div><div dir="auto">or<br></div><div dir="auto">foot=designated highway=cycleway segregated=no</div><div dir="auto">or<br></div><div dir="auto">bicycle=designated highway=footway segregated=no<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Tagging with foot=no is not correct, neither is foot=discouraged,
since pedestrians are legally allowed to use it (due to the already
quoted law).<br></div><div> <br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">and following that is causing problem with routers, and people tag incorrectly for routers...<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div> <br></div><blockquote type="cite"><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 target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Witosa_bike_2.jpg" class="">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></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, I do not mean like that. In this case, the pedestrian is on the
sign and I assume Polish law defines the meaning of that sign. In
Norway, we do not have that particular sign. <br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">It is marking "here is footway and cycleway, cycleway is on the right" and marks<br></div><div dir="auto">that both pedestrians and cyclists should use own part only.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">tagged as<br></div><div dir="auto">foot=designated bicycle=designated highway=path segregated=yes<br></div><div dir="auto">or<br></div><div dir="auto">foot=designated highway=cycleway segregated=yes</div><div dir="auto">or<br></div><div dir="auto">bicycle=designated highway=footway segregated=yes</div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">We only have the one
for combined cycleway and footway, the one for cycleway, and the one
for footway.<br></div><div> <br></div><div> <img style="max-width: 100px;" alt="sf-20051007-1219-522-01.gif"> <img style="max-width: 100px;" alt="sf-20051007-1219-520-01.gif"> <img style="max-width: 100px;" alt="sf-20051007-1219-518-01.gif"><br></div><div> <br></div><div> This is how a cycleway with a sidewalk is signed in Norway:<br></div><div> <br></div><div> <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="" href="https://miljopakken.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Stiklestadvn-m-syklist.jpg">https://miljopakken.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Stiklestadvn-m-syklist.jpg</a><br></div><div> <br></div><div> Road painting does not carry any legal status in Norway and is only
there to help guide road users to the appropriate<br></div><div> <br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">So in <a href="https://miljopakken.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Stiklestadvn-m-syklist.jpg" class="" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://miljopakken.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Stiklestadvn-m-syklist.jpg</a> case<br></div><div dir="auto">pedestrians and cyclists can actually use entire space and ignore road markings?<br></div> </body>
</html>