<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Hi Mateusz. Thank you for responding.<br>
<br>
On 03.08.2022 09:16, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:N8XZ362--3-2@tutanota.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>Aug 2, 2022, 23:42 by <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:balchen@saint-etienne.no">balchen@saint-etienne.no</a>:<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
The default map from the tile server is viewable here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://sykkelkart.rogalandsyklistforening.no/">https://sykkelkart.rogalandsyklistforening.no/</a><br>
Move to the Stavanger area to see what a fully cleaned map looks
like.<br>
Tiles are rendered on the fly.<br>
Due to react-leaflet having made itself incompatible with
create-react-app, I've not yet set up a proper map viewer.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:N8XZ362--3-2@tutanota.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
For zoom level >= 17, I include highway=cycleway and
highway=footway that do not match the quality requirements, wether
it's from a lack of tagging or from tagging that indicates too low
quality (e.g. surface=fine_gravel is normally excluded, no surface
tagging at all is normally excluded, and highway=footway is normally
excluded, but they are all included at zoom >= 17).<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:N8XZ362--3-2@tutanota.com">
<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>
<br>
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="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/No:Map_Features">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/No:Map_Features</a>.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:N8XZ362--3-2@tutanota.com">
<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>
<br>
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="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/No:Map_Features">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/No:Map_Features</a>.
<br>
<b>This is the very heart of the issue that I am raising -- that the
tagging standard </b><b><i>does not reflect the legal status.</i></b><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:N8XZ362--3-2@tutanota.com">
<div dir="auto">Is standalone cycleway without footway part
accessible to pedestrians or not?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It is, by law.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/1986-03-21-747">https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/1986-03-21-747</a>, § 19,
auto-translated:<br>
<br>
"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>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:N8XZ362--3-2@tutanota.com">
<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="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/No:Map_Features"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Mistagging_for_the_renderer</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
A probable contributing cause is "mistagging for the router".<br>
<br>
Pedestrians are generally allowed on any road, with some mild
constraints. Cyclists are generally allowed on any road and on
sidewalks, with some constraints on speed. This is a rather uniquely
Norwegian situation. The observable tagging practice in Norway seems
to have been to make sure that everyone is allowed everywhere so
that routing can work even if routers do not implement Norwegian
law.<br>
<br>
Another probable contributing cause is that fact that most people,
even road planners, don't know a cycleway from a combined cycleway
and footway.<br>
<br>
All these tings combined have caused a "proper" cycleway to become
an exception that can no longer be accurately described in OSM, so
practice is to tag them with foot=no/discouraged even if this is
wrong according to the law.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:N8XZ362--3-2@tutanota.com">
<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>
<br>
If that is the conclusion, which tag would we add to complete it?
foot=no/discouraged is wrong by law. What else?<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:N8XZ362--3-2@tutanota.com">
<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>
<br>
<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/No:Map_Features">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/No:Map_Features</a>
says to tag a cycleway with highway=cycleway, and optionally add
foot=no/discouraged. The strict interpretation is that a cycleway is
defined by highway=cycleway on its own, since foot=no/discouraged is
optional. The fact that pedestrians have legal right of access on
any cycleway where not explicitly prohibited, follows from the law.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:N8XZ362--3-2@tutanota.com">
<blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
#93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">
<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"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2019_Warszawa_aleje_Jerozolimskie,_chodnik_i_droga_rowerowa.jpg</a></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The law (as quoted above) allows pedestrians to use their own
judgement on when and where they find it reasonable or possible to
use the footway, sidewalk or shoulder. As such, it cannot
principally and generally be tagged with foot=no even if there is an
adjacent footway, unless there is a sign.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:N8XZ362--3-2@tutanota.com">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>
<blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
#93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">
<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>
<br>
The carriageway (or cycleway) is defined as the part of the road
used for regular vehicle traffic. Typically this area is marked by
solid or dashed white lines on the edges of the road. Anything
outside of those lines is the road's shoulder and is <i>not</i> a
part of the carriageway/cycleway. Norwegian law explicitly allows
pedestrians to <i>always use the shoulder on any road </i><i>unless
explicitly prohibited</i>.<br>
<br>
<img src="cid:part1.AvaePqeD.xHYe9A0M@saint-etienne.no" alt="Driving
theory questions: Study the picture. Which letter represents the
hard shoulder?"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:N8XZ362--3-2@tutanota.com">
<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>
<br>
Exactly. And the legal status is clearly outlined above. Pedestrians
are allowed, according to their judgement of the specific
circumstances at the time or place, on any cycleway or carriageway,
and they are by default always allowed to the road's shoulder, where
not explicitly prohibited.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:N8XZ362--3-2@tutanota.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
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".
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>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:N8XZ362--3-2@tutanota.com">
<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"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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>
<br>
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. We only have the one
for combined cycleway and footway, the one for cycleway, and the one
for footway.<br>
<br>
<img
src="https://lovdata.no/static/SF/sf-20051007-1219-522-01.gif?timestamp=1655819252307"
alt="sf-20051007-1219-522-01.gif"> <img
src="https://lovdata.no/static/SF/sf-20051007-1219-520-01.gif?timestamp=1655819252307"
alt="sf-20051007-1219-520-01.gif"> <img
src="https://lovdata.no/static/SF/sf-20051007-1219-518-01.gif?timestamp=1655819252307"
alt="sf-20051007-1219-518-01.gif"><br>
<br>
This is how a cycleway with a sidewalk is signed in Norway:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" 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>
<br>
Road painting does not carry any legal status in Norway and is only
there to help guide road users to the appropriate<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>