[Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated

[Paul Johnson]

Does it have bike route signage?  It's designated.


On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at gmail.com>
wrote:

> bicycle=designated is widely used but it not well defined.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:bicycle%3Ddesignated&redirect=no
> is just redirect, to page that describes hopelessly inclusive rules "It
> may imply extra usage rights for the given mode of transport (i.e.
> normally a
> vehicle is banned, but in this case it is allowed), or may be just a
> suggested
> route (e.g. bicycles can in most jurisdictions ride on any street, but some
> particular streets are recommended and signed as such.)".
>
> According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dofficial
> <some_access_tag>=designated "often includes ways that have no legal
> dedication like e.g. recommended routes of a local bicycle club" - maybe
> "often"
> is not correct, but such tagging would not be against what is described on
> wiki.
>
> bicycle=designated is described as standard for tagging of official
> cycleways, but
> AFAIK it is not defined on wiki that it should be used exclusively for
> this purpose.
>
> So how one should tag in following situations?
>
> 1) official cycleway
> 2) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is legal
> 3) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is illegal but
> usually nobody
> bothers to enforce this rule
> 4) road/footway/path not used widely by cyclists, cycling is illegal
> 5) road where normally cyclists are banned but special signs/some other
> rules
> change this
> 6) signed cycle route, cycling is legal
> 7) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal but usually nobody bothers to
> enforce this rule
> 8) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal and this rule is enforced
>
> I would use
>
> 1) [highway=cycleway] (bicycle=designated is implied) or [highway=path;
> bicycle=designated]
> 2) nothing iff bicycle=yes is implied, bicycle=yes otherwise
> 3) nothing iff bicycle=no is implied, bicycle=no otherwise
> 4) see above
> 5) bicycle=yes
> 6, 7, 8) tag route as relation, with bicycle access tagged as above
>
> but according to wiki
>
> 1) may be tagged also using bicycle=official
> 5) should be tagged as bicycle=designated ("normally a vehicle is banned,
> but in
> this case it is allowed")
> 6, 7, 8) should be tagged as bicycle=designated ("a suggested route")
>
> What more, there are people interested in different tags for situation 3)
> and 4)
> (usually they want to use bicycle=designated for 3).
>
> I am not sure what would be the best solution of situation. I thought about
>
> I) redefining =designated to the definition of =official
> II) defining bicycle=designated to be like =official
> III) retagging bicycle=designated on official cycleways to bicycle=official
> IV) creation of new tag official_cycleway=yes/no that may be applied to
> bicycle=designated ways that would clarify status
>
> I and II are not solving "I want to tag illegal but popular bicycle routes"
> II in addition would mean that say horse=designated and bicycle=designated
> follows different logic
> III would mean that multiple data consumers need to follow tagging change
> IV is an ugly hack that would be sooner or later followed by III
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140903/a6c314c0/attachment.html>