<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<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. 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>
<br>
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>
<br>
In many countries, there is no official designation as "cycle
highway"; or the "cycle highway"-tagging doesn't have traffic law
implications, 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>
(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>
<br>
<br>
Furthermore, many motorways _do_ have physical properties mapped,
such as number of lanes, whether they are lit at night or not
(some parts in Belgium are not, for example), what the surface is
(concrete and asphalt are common here), what the maximum allowed
speed is (and if it is missing, the _traffic sign_ we mapped
implicitly has some rules about it). But again, it is the traffic
sign per country that decides this - not the build intent of the
build quality. Again, in your example, the 'trunk link' is decided
by the actual traffic signs, not how it feels or what it looks
like.<br>
<br>
And yes, I am in favour of having physical data as this allows for
other usecases too - e.g. planning supersized transport. <br>
Furthermore, there is little value in mapping "standards", as
these standards might change in the future. 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). Furthermore,<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://xkcd.com/927/"> which
standards should be mapped</a> in OSM?<br>
<br>
So, I think you should work out a tagging scheme for Norway for
express cycleways. Data consumers _can_ make assumptions about the
road then, but having a generic cycleway=expressway feels like
translating legislation to other countries where it simply is not
applicable.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
Pieter<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2022-08-05 14:02, Jens Glad Balchen
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:30bdc3f1-ddde-82db-b986-3cfdaf0baddf@saint-etienne.no">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05.08.2022 12:30, Pieter Vander
Vennet wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c4893b67-60d4-e6bc-5e6f-38425a3b4ecb@posteo.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<p>As far as I know, a `motorway` is a road **with control of
access**, i.e. this is a legal designation. If there is a
traffic sign which forbids the use of non-car traffic, it
should be mapped as motorway.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
There is a specific sign for a motorway. <img
src="https://lovdata.no/static/SF/sf-20051007-1219-502-01.gif?timestamp=1655819252307"
alt="sf-20051007-1219-502-01.gif" moz-do-not-send="true"> <br>
<br>
The access meaning of this sign (at least in Norway) is: <br>
* prohibited for pedestrians<br>
* prohibited for cyclists<br>
* prohibited for (motor) scooters<br>
* prohibited for (motor) tractors<br>
* prohibited for any (motor) vehicle with a contructed speed of
less than 45 kph. <br>
<br>
The other meanings of this sign (at least in Norway) are: <br>
<br>
* a minimum speed limit of 90 kph<br>
* minimum two lanes in each direction<br>
* minimum lane width of 3.5 meters<br>
* physical separation between travel directions<br>
* no at-grade crossings<br>
* on-ramps and off-ramps instead of direct entry<br>
* no vertical gradient above 5%<br>
* fences along the entire perimeter of the road to prevent access
by animals and pedestrians<br>
* traffic route signs must be white text on blue background (a s
opposed to non-motorway roads which must have traffic route signs
with black text on yellow background)<br>
<br>
<br>
If someone saw a road with this sign on it <img
src="https://lovdata.no/static/SF/sf-20051007-1219-306-8-01.gif?timestamp=1655819252307"
alt="sf-20051007-1219-306-8-01.gif" moz-do-not-send="true"> and
decided to tag that as a motorway, like you are now advocating, I
would remove that tag as obviously incorrect. I don't agree with
your assertion in the least.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c4893b67-60d4-e6bc-5e6f-38425a3b4ecb@posteo.net">
<p> > The problem with "mapping the physical properties of
the road" is: how would you map design speed, line of sight,
curve radius, turning lanes, no level crossings, etc. in a way
that an OSM data consumer (like a map renderer or a routing
engine) could conclude "This is a high quality cycleway" and
"This is a lower quality cycleway"?<br>
If you tried to use the same argument on highway=motorway, how
would you map it if you were to only "map the physical
properties of the road"?<br>
<br>
How are these things currently mapped? I'm breaking them down
on how they can be handled:<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
These tings that you list are <b><u>not</u></b> currently mapped
this way for motorways. And I assume you are not in favour of
ditching highway=motorway in favour of your extensive tag list,
massive geoqueries, and complicated geometrical calculations
simply to be able to know if something is a motorway?<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c4893b67-60d4-e6bc-5e6f-38425a3b4ecb@posteo.net">
<p>Another problem I do have with this proposal is that it is
gonna be very hard to create an "express-way"-definition that
is somewhat applicable worldwide and is easy to apply.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
It doesn't need to applicable worldwide any more than
highway=motorway or highway=trunk need to be applicable
world-wide.<br>
<br>
This is a Norwegian trunk road: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://goo.gl/maps/7PfJpKrartJAYy4V6"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://goo.gl/maps/7PfJpKrartJAYy4V6</a><br>
This is a Belgian trunk road: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://goo.gl/maps/ALoDtXp2VpAeRm2x5"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://goo.gl/maps/ALoDtXp2VpAeRm2x5</a><br>
<br>
We need to accept that there are differences in standards.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c4893b67-60d4-e6bc-5e6f-38425a3b4ecb@posteo.net">
<p> For example, what in Belgium is considered a high-quality
"cycle highway" is considered a normal cycleway in the
Netherlands. <br>
The definition in your email is "a cycleway that is built to a
significantly higher standard than a regular cycleway."<br>
What is a `regular cycleway`? How wide should it be? What
surface should it have?<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
That can vary from country to country, exactly like the
requirements for a motorway or a trunk road vary.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c4893b67-60d4-e6bc-5e6f-38425a3b4ecb@posteo.net">
<p>And then I'm not even touching upon real-world difficulties.
What if such an expressway is only half constructed?</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
The part that is constructed gets the tag and the part that isn't
constructed of course does not get the tag, since it isn't
constructed. Are these really the issues you have in Belgium? I am
amazed.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c4893b67-60d4-e6bc-5e6f-38425a3b4ecb@posteo.net">
<p> Belgium is an excellent example, where `Fietssnelweg`
precisely means the `route relation`, <b><i>not</i></b> a
certain standard of building as this is sometimes not
possible.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Then that is the opposite to Norway, where 'Sykkelekspressveg'
means a certain standard of building, regardless of the route
relation. So you are free in Belgium to not use the new tag until
such time as Belgium introduces a physical requirement for cycle
expressways, or you are free as an OSM community to decide that
you want to duck tag cycle expressways like the Australians duck
tag their motorways. It's up to you.<br>
<br>
I don't see how that translates into opposing that we can tag
something that is both clearly defined and clearly signed in
Norway with an appropriate tag, that could also be applicable in
other parts of the world with a generally agreed-upon
understanding of what the tag means.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c4893b67-60d4-e6bc-5e6f-38425a3b4ecb@posteo.net">Furthermore,
there is a huge difference in preferences of cyclists. Some will
want to take the cycle highway to get to their job quickly,
others will shun away from it and prefer the quieter, more
scenic routes.<br>
<p> A desirable route for one cyclist might be horrible for
another cyclist. With the company I work at, we went quite far
in defining multiple aspects to a road (expected, speed,
feeling of safety, feeling of comfort, ...) to mix and match
this in different profiles. See <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://github.com/pietervdvn/AspectedRouting/blob/master/BuildingAProfile.md"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://github.com/pietervdvn/AspectedRouting/blob/master/BuildingAProfile.md</a>
for more info.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
My proposal is not about tagging routes, and it is not about
tagging routes as being either commuter routes or touristic
routes.<br>
<br>
Please do not confuse the concept of road quality with the concept
of commuter or touristic routes.<br>
<br>
Jens<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>