[Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory
sg.forum at gmx.de
Sat Mar 28 23:21:48 UTC 2015
I'm not shy for a discussion about cycleways in general, but that’s not my goal here. Please mail me directly if you like.
As for "designated" and "official", that’s kind of the problem I have with the actual use of those keys.
"designated" was introduced to refine the highway=path (if I read correctly). So any way that is meant for cyclist is "designated", even when it is not mandatory to use (or is this were I'm wrong.)
"official" on the other hand has the contradiction already built in the proposal, were it says "[...] for ways legally dedicated to specific modes of travel by a law or by the rules of traffic [...]. In some countries like Germany such a usage right is also mandatory [...]."
If you are able to recognize a cycleway without one of those three sign, it is still a true cycleway and you have the right to use, but it is not mandatory. The proposal is wrong at that point.
I'm going to work on an example using a segregated cycle and footway to explain my problem further. I hope someone can help me resolve the problems I'm having.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Poole [mailto:simon at poole.ch]
> Sent: Samstag, 28. März 2015 21:22
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory
> Am 28.03.2015 um 16:10 schrieb Hubert:
> > That's not what I wanted to say. A cycleway is mandatory if has one
> of the signs 237, 240 or 241 AND it is parallel to a road. A sign by
> itself doesn't make a cycleway mandatory.
> You have something confused there. Germany has two (forgetting about
> lanes for now) kinds of cycleways:
> - such without mandatory use provision (used to be "andere
> Radverkehrsanlagen"), there does not seem to be any formal signage for
> these and it could be argued that they don't really exist.
> - such with a mandatory use provision indicated with one of the already
> mentioned three signs.
> Mandatory in this context means you have to use the cycleway instead of
> a nearby normal road surface/area.
> For the later there is a list of reasons why you can be exempt from the
> mandatory use provision, for example that there is no other alternative
> surface you can cycle on (the example you cited), your vehicle doesn't
> fit on the cycleway, the cycleway doesn't actually go to where you want
> to go and so on. In other countries this is called "common sense".
> Now even though I yet have to see an instance of the first kind of
> cycleway that can't be modelled with normal access tags, if they are
> even necessary in the first place, the community has accepted that in
> Germany bicycle=official instead of designated is used for the 2nd kind
> of cycleway so that they could theoretically be differentiated.
> Further if you want to model the situation even "better" (nearby road
> surfaces are already "nearby" in OSM data) you can now add
> bicycle=use_sidepath to the alternative surface that you are not
> allowed to ride on (even though I personally consider that a waste of
> perfectly good bits).
> There is simply no point in both a practical and theoretical sense for
> splitting the "official" value in to "official" and in to
> "I_think_this_might_be_mandatory" given that the later is purely
More information about the Tagging