[Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

Volker Schmidt voschix at gmail.com
Mon Apr 13 22:08:31 UTC 2015


I must admit that I do not fully understand your text.

My interpretation of your questions is:

1) How would you tag the segregated cycle-and-foot-way shown in
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Separated_cycle_and_foot_path.jpg
?

My answer:
highway=path; foot=designated; bicycle=designated; segregated=yes.
In addition you may want to specifcy which side is the the footway and
which side is the cycleway by lanes=2 and bicycle:lanes=yes|no and
foot:lanes=no|yes

2) How would you tag the way shown in
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Separated_cycle_and_foot_path.jpg,
if there where no blue traffic sign?

Answer: As there would be no indication on what kind of traffic is allowed
I would tag it as highway=unclassified

3) How would you tag the segregated cycle-and-foot-way shown in
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Separated_roadside_cycle_and_foot_path.jpg

My answer: exactly as in case (1) for the cycle-and-foot-way and in
addition bicycle=use_sidepath on the street

On 13 April 2015 at 23:36, Hubert <sg.forum at gmx.de> wrote:

> Hallo.
>
>
>
> Sorry for not answering for a while. I had/have to concentrate on my
> studies.
>
> As for bicycle=obligatory/mandatory, I can see why there is so much
> objection for introducing a new value, but I still think that the current
> use of bicycle=official/designated/yes is less optimal than it could be.
>
> If some you feels up for it, I would like to hear your thoughts on the
> following separated cycle way >>with and without<< the corresponding
> traffic sign. (
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Separated_cycle_and_foot_path.jpg
> )
>
> The way I see it, it is “official” and “designated” for cyclist in both
> cases, at least from the wording. However, the question remains whether it
> should also be tagged as “bicycle=official/designated” or “bicycle=yes” or
> something else.
>
> I would also like to ask you to considered the “normal” situation (
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Separated_roadside_cycle_and_foot_path.jpg)
> in the same way and in comparison to the stand-alone cycle way.
>
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Hubert
>
>
>
> *From:* Hubert [mailto:sg.forum at gmx.de]
> *Sent:* Freitag, 27. März 2015 23:57
> *To:* 'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools'
> *Subject:* [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory
>
>
>
> Hallo fellow mappers and bicycle enthusiasts,
>
> I have created a proposal to tag obligatory roadside cycle ways with
> bicycle=obligatory.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/obligatory_usage
>
> The proposals is in its early stages right now, but I would like to get
> your ideas and comments already.
>
> This value can be interpreted as an counterpart to bicycle=use_sidepath.
>
> As this tag would replace bicycle=designated in a quite a few cases, I am
> hoping for a lot of support from the community.
>
> Happy mapping
>
> Hubert
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150414/bd4eaf6d/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list