<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<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"> <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 (as
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"> 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">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">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>
</body>
</html>