[Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

[Hubert]

Hi,

thanks for the replies. I hope I don't bug you to much.

> > 1) Picture 1 with the blue traffic sign
> >
> > My answer:
> > highway=path; foot=designated; bicycle=designated; segregated=yes.
> > In addition you may want to specify which side is the footway and
> > which side is the cycleway by lanes=2 and bicycle:lanes=yes|no and
> > foot:lanes=no|yes You may also add colour:lanes=red|grey
> 
> Please, use the proper access tags with :lanes highway=path 
> bicycle=designated
> foot=designated segregated=yes bicycle:lanes=designated|no
> foot:lanes=no|designated vehicle=no

+1. That's what I'd tag in general, too. However, maybe not with all the details.

> >> 2) Picture 1 without the blue traffic sign
> >>
> >
> > My answer:
> > Anything of the following, depending on context:
> > highway=unclassified/track/pedestrian/cycleway/...
> > But none of foot/bicycle=designated/official/yes
> 
> +1
> would use highway=unclassified/service/track/path

You can't see this on the picture, but that way isn't connected to the main street directly but only to a road adjacent segregated foot and cycle path which is in turn separated from the roadway by a grass area.
So the way in picture 1 would be a highway=path.
 
The problem I see is, that the foot path (gray part) stays designated for pedestrians and the cycle path (red part) stays designated for cyclist under german law (Judges rulings and highway code), even if the traffic sign is not present.
Therefore, I believe that one should tag 
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
segregated=yes
in addition to highway=path for that way in picture 1 without the traffic sign.

> >> 3) Picture 2 with the blue traffic sign
> >>
> >
> > My answer:
> > exactly as in case (1) for the cycle-and-foot-way and in addition
> > bicycle=use_sidepath on the street
> 
> Would not tag the sidewalk as separate object
> 
> highway=*
> cycleway=track
> segregated=yes
> sidewalk=both

OK

> alternatively as separate objects three ways
> main:
> 
> highway=*
> bicyle=use_sidepath
> sidewalk=sidepath
> 
> and on both sides
> 
> as 1) with additional
> oneway=yes
> path=sidewalk

+1, but I'm not sure if "path=sidewalk" is enough, since there are two ways represented by one highway=path. Maybe something like "path=sidetrack;sidewalk" or "path=sideway" or "footway=sidewalk + cycleway=sidetrack" or ... But that's another story.

> >> 4) Picture 2 without the blue traffic sign
> >>
> >
> > My answers:
> >
> > Alternative (a)
> > highway=residential
> > sidewalk=both
> > Reason: If there is no sign whatsoever, I would consider both sides as
> > sidewalk (Buergersteig in German).
> 
> +1
> 
> Well, in Germany bicycles are legally allowed to use the sidewalk in this 
> case but it is not compulsory.

Actually, from my understanding of the applicable laws, sidewalks are designated to pedestrians and exclusive. They may only be used by cyclists if there is a special traffic sign combination [1]. However in the case of picture 2, right hand side, one can clearly identify the cycle track (red) on the sidepath between the carriageway and the sidewalk. In this case the use of the cycle track is optional. See below.

> As the German bicycle club (ADFC) advises its member not to use it anymore
> (after the blue signs where removed) and my personal observation are that
> other people riding on the former cycle track higher the chances that car
> driver honk and even riskily overtake when I correctly ride one meter left > of the curb on the street.
> 
> Therefor everyone using this former cycle track is lifting the risk of
> accidents and there are usually more than one reason why the signs where
> removed.

Further more:

> All together I can understand others using
> 
> sidewalk:bicycle=yes
> 
> but would not tag it. Instead I usually add a note=* to tell others that 
> the signes where removed.

I would interpret "sidewalk:bicycle=yes" as [1].

> > Alternative (b)
> > Use separate ways on both sides of the street with: highway=footway,
> > but none of foot/bicycle=designated/official Without additional signs
> > the paths on both sides of the road are sidewalks (i.e. pedestrian
> > use)
> 
> highway=*
> sidewalk=sidepath
> 
> plus on both sides
> 
> highway=path
> foot=designated
> bicyles=yes
> oneway=yes
> path=sidewalk

In my understanding this would be equal to [1]:
highway=footway
footway=sidewalk
bicyles=yes
oneway=yes

I would tag Picture 2 as 

highway>=residential
bicycle=use_sidepath (with the blue traffic sign)
bicycle=yes/"empty"  (without the blue traffic sign)
(foot=use_sidepath)
cycleway=sidepath
sidewalk=sidepath

and for both cases:

highway=path
(path=?)
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
segregated=yes
(+ surface, etc.)

So, the sidepath would be tagged identically for  both cases (with and without the traffic sign). While this is no problem for a router (thanks for *=use_sidepath) a renderer can't distinguish between a mandatory cycle track and an optional one. 
That's why people (from what I read) started to use bicycle=official/designated for mandatory cycle tracks and bicycle=designated/yes respectively for optional cycle tracks. That's what I am criticizing and am trying to resolve.

> > In all four cases there are in addition all the other tags like
> > surface=; smoothness=; lit=
> 
> +1
> 
> sidewalk:surface=paving_stones
> cycleway:surface=paving_stones
> 
> sidewalk:smoothness=good/intermittent
> cycleway:smoothness=good/intermittent

+1

Ideally, I would like to be able to represent all 4 cases with a combination of highway=* , bicycle=* and cycleway=*, in a way that the data can be used by renderers and routers to distinguish between mandatory and optional cycle ways and roadside as well as stand-alone cycle ways. Including other tags if they are applicable.

Yours
Hubert

Picture 1: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Separated_cycle_and_foot_path.jpg
Picture 2: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Separated_roadside_cycle_and_foot_path.jpg
[1] : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Zeichen_239_mit_Zusatzzeichen_10-2210.svg