[Tagging] access=designated wiki

Hubert sg.forum at gmx.de
Fri Jul 24 15:24:30 UTC 2015

Ø  access=designated is not what you want.

For clarification, I don’t use ‘access’=designated but ‘bicycle’=designated, ‘foot’=designated etc. Just like the wiki page sais : “The exact key/value combination  <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access> access=designated should never appear on an object”


Ø  What is wrong with using the tag bicycle=yes ? Bicycles are 'permitted' .. but not necessarily marked by/on the roadway. 

IMO “bicycle=yes” or “foot=yes” are not enough, also permitted is not correct since these road parts are exclusively designated for a specific road use (as you put it.)


I will try to explain my issue with the example of two segregated cycle- and footway. One with a traffic sign [1] and other one without a traffic sign [2]

Both ways are designated for pedestrians and cyclists, each with their own part of the way.

But only the way with the traffic sign will be tagged with bicycle=designated, foot=designated using the definition in the description box

That is not logical, because both ways are still equally designated to pedestrians and cyclist in both situations.



[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Z241GetrennterRadUndGehweg.png

[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:GetrennterRadUndGehweg.jpeg


From: Warin [mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com] 
Sent: Freitag, 24. Juli 2015 16:20
To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki


On 24/07/2015 11:42 PM, Hubert wrote:

Well, there a ways that are “designated” for specific road users but are not marked explicitly and must be recognized through their design.


I would put that as 

There are ways that are intended for a specific road use... 

For example sidewalks. They are designated for pedestrians and could tag – ignoring the tag it as a sub key discussion – as highway=footway (implying foot=designated).

Same for cycle ways, at least in Germany as you might know (Pictures 1 and 2). 

So requiring a way to be marked is too strong for that definition.


True. access=designated is not what you want. 

What is wrong with using the tag bicycle=yes ? Bicycles are 'permitted' .. but not necessarily marked by/on the roadway. 



Picture 1 : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:RadwegOhneBenutzungspflicht.jpg

Picture 2 : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:GetrennterRadUndGehweg.jpeg


From: jonathan at bigfatfrog67.me [mailto:jonathan at bigfatfrog67.me] 
Sent: Freitag, 24. Juli 2015 15:05
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki


I agree with Volker.  To me designated meant “what it is says on the roadside signage”.  Usually seen where there are unique or special circumstances restricting access.





From: Warin <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com> 
Sent: ‎Friday‎, ‎24‎ ‎July‎ ‎2015 ‎13‎:‎50
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <mailto:tagging at openstreetmap.org> 


On 24/07/2015 9:30 PM, Hubert wrote:


during a discussion within the german forum [1], I have been pointed to the description box of the “access=designated” wikipage [2].

It reads “A way marked for a particular use.”.

I would like to change it to “A way designated for a particular use” or “A way intended for a particular use.”. Probably the latter one.

The reason is, that the word “marked” implies that a way is ,well, marked with a traffic sign or by road paintings, which is not necessarily true. 

Also the topic ”general use case” is not that strictly formulated as the “description” box and allows the use of “designated” in a much wider range of cases.

Are there any objections against me change that word?


For me, Yes. 

Meaning I object. 

If it is not marked .. than how do you (or anyone) know that it is 'designated'? 

Ummm 'marked' could mean it is 'marked' on some plan or other rather than 'marked' by a traffic sign or by road painting ... but I'd think if it is not marked locally then the 'designation' will be ineffective. 
OSM is supposed to reflect what is 'on the ground' so marked is appropriate. Particularly by a traffic sign or by road painting.

Happy to be persuaded otherwise... 
Could you provide a link to the German discussion? That may help. 

Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150724/c16d8e58/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list