<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
On 05.08.2022 14:43, Pieter Vander Vennet wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3b8dab1f-6abe-11db-76d7-ecbc8e3a8f99@posteo.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Hi Jens,<br>
<br>
> There is a specific sign for a motorway. <br>
<br>
This is precisely what I mean: OSM maps ways marked with this
traffic sign as motorway. The definition for mappers is then
"there is such a traffic sign present - here is a list of them
for every country". The respective government is then
responsible of making sure the actual roads are up to spec -
which might not be the case.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Except for Australia, where this is apparently no official sign or
classification, and the OSM community is duck tagging motorways.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3b8dab1f-6abe-11db-76d7-ecbc8e3a8f99@posteo.net">
<p> For example: in Norway, there need to be fences along the
motorway (as you state in your email). If the fence is missing
(e.g. because there is a cliff on one side, making it impossible
to place one), this does not devaluate the motorway to another
road type. Removing the traffic signs however _does_, as it
changes the default tagging rules.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree. There are formal processes in place (at least in
Norway....) where road planners or road builders can apply for
exemptions from specific requirements of a physical road class. When
these exemptions are granted, they do not affect the classification.
If the approval board finds that the exemption is too significant,
they will either say no, or say that the road needs a different
class.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3b8dab1f-6abe-11db-76d7-ecbc8e3a8f99@posteo.net">
<p> If Norway places traffic signs for cycle express ways - with
specific traffic rules , then this can be tagged and the
definition is straightforward as "there is a cycle expressway
traffic sign present".<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
I would assume most of Europe have some sort of sign for cycleways <img
src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/NO_road_sign_520.svg/120px-NO_road_sign_520.svg.png?20080804151705"
alt="Thumbnail for version as of 15:17, 4 August 2008" width="74"
height="74"> that carry legal implications in the highway code
about the legal use of the road, and also carry build quality
requirements as defined by each country's public roads authority. At
least in Norway this is the case.<br>
<br>
The sign for cycle expressway <img
src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/NO_road_sign_520_sev.svg/80px-NO_road_sign_520_sev.svg.png?20220805105849"
alt="Thumbnail for version as of 10:58, 5 August 2022"> does not
carry additional legal requirement in the highway code, but does
carry additional build quality requirements as defined by the public
roads authority.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3b8dab1f-6abe-11db-76d7-ecbc8e3a8f99@posteo.net">
<p> In many countries, there is no official designation as "cycle
highway"; or the "cycle highway"-tagging doesn't have traffic
law implications</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
OSM taggers in these will be free to not use the tag or to implement
duck tagging, like Australians do with motorways.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3b8dab1f-6abe-11db-76d7-ecbc8e3a8f99@posteo.net">
<p>such as in Belgium where the cycle highways rather act as a
routing network with the promise of having "high quality cycling
paths once in the future". Right now, it _is_ a patchwork of
different roads and crossings so we can't make any assumptions
about the physical appearance of the actual roads.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
We too experience that cycle network "standards" and promises of
high quality roads do not match the reality of the roads built or
designated as part of the route. <b>It is precisely for this reason</b>
that it is important to tag <b>both the route</b> and <b>what the
physical road is</b>. <br>
<br>
For all other physical roads, we can tag them easily in OSM using
highway=tertiary, highway=service, highway=cycleway, highway=footway
+ footway=sidewalk this is very common in Norway), highway=cycleway
+ surface=fine_gravel, etc.<br>
I think I have mapped every type of road you can imagine on a cycle
"route". <br>
But when I try to map a cycle expressway, <u>I have no way to map
it</u><u>. It maps exactly like a regular cycleway</u>.<u> I want
to be able to tell the difference, because there is a real-world
difference. And I can't!</u><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3b8dab1f-6abe-11db-76d7-ecbc8e3a8f99@posteo.net">
<p> (Note that you _do_ include the belgian cycle highways in your
tagging proposal - partly why I'm so vigilant about this issue -
please remove this from your proposal!).<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
I already changed that part yesterday after it became clear that BE
cycle highways are not what they are being described as. I'm sorry
for the confusion. Every Norwegian source on them, and all the
sources I can find online (both English and Dutch/Flemish) say that
they ARE a road quality, but I readily and easily accept that they
aren't and that they are merely a route designation.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3b8dab1f-6abe-11db-76d7-ecbc8e3a8f99@posteo.net">
<p> Furthermore, many motorways _do_ have physical properties
mapped</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, but this is not a requirement for OSM and consumers to treat
them as motorways. It's a refinement.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3b8dab1f-6abe-11db-76d7-ecbc8e3a8f99@posteo.net">
<p>Furthermore, there is little value in mapping "standards", as
these standards might change in the future. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Any standard can change in the future, even that for the motorway
sign. We need to keep OSM updated. This is not a counterargument.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3b8dab1f-6abe-11db-76d7-ecbc8e3a8f99@posteo.net">
<p>Having physical features is better, as it can be queried which
parts are up to some standards and e.g. a cycling organization
can query which locations do meet a stricter standard (the
european cycling federation has a higher standard, for example).
<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree, but this is a refinement. We should be able to do things
without capturing the tiny details.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3b8dab1f-6abe-11db-76d7-ecbc8e3a8f99@posteo.net">
<p>Furthermore,<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://xkcd.com/927/"> which standards should be mapped</a>
in OSM?<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
If there is an official standard (like in Norway), use it.<br>
If there isn't, agree on one (like in Australia), or agree not to
tag according a standard.<br>
<br>
It's up to you.<br>
<br>
Jens<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>