[Tagging] RFC - sidepath tagging scheme

Hubert sg.forum at gmx.de
Tue Oct 27 18:31:04 UTC 2015


On Tuesday, 27. Oktober 2015 17:23 Mateusz Konieczny
[mailto:matkoniecz at gmail.com] wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:12:50 +0100
>"Hubert" <sg.forum at gmx.de> wrote:

My guess is you missed this when deleting the rest.

>I strongly oppose changing "separate ways or tag on main road may be 
>preferred in different places, depending on local consensus" to 
>"tagging on main road is always preferable in some situation".

This is something I want to discuss. Right now my proposal has 3 styles
(subtags only (near), always as separate ways (far) and mixed). It's still
possible to tag sidepaths separated by curbs only as a separate drawn and
vice versa. The mixed style is a compromise, because in my experience form
following this mailing list and the german forum far sidepaths are most
commonly tagged as separate ways while near sidepaths are preferred as tags
on the 'main' road.

I personally like my sidepaths to be tagged as separate ways, as it can hold
more information most notably the course of a way. But I have also noticed
the need for the data of those ways on the central ways. Mostly for maps of
larger areas (one city). It is this conflict I want to resolve.  

>Inventing new tags to describe combined and segregated footway and 
>cycleway (both with its own surface) is complicated even in case of 
>using separate way for this structure.

I don't do that. 

>Tagging it on main road, just because on certain distance there is no 
>strip of grass separating it from main road would make necessary to use
ridiculous tags.
>Even in case of long stretches of road, footway and cycleway separated 
>only by curbs tagging it as one element is apoor idea.

So no mixed style!?

>In extreme case - there is one place in my city with cycleway between 
>two footways. Cycleway, footways and road are all separated by curbs.
>Good luck with tagging it as tags on the main road 
>(cycleway:right:central:surface=asphalt?).

No, since tagging on the "main road" already needs a higher level of
abstraction, one would only tag that the cycleway on the right site of the
road has an asphalt surface. (cycleway:right:surface=asphalt). The placement
of the cycleway in regard to the footway(s) would be uncalled-for. 
In addition that situation would also be a problem when tagging the sidepath
using highway=path + segregated=yes + bicyle=designated + foot=designated

>BTW, in my area there is a recent trend to tag footways and cycleway as 
>separate ways - even in cases of footways and cycleway separated solely 
>by a painted line on surface.

That's a different story and reminds me on a conflict of separately dram
turn lanes and the tag turn:lanes=* from about a year ago.

Yours Hubert

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 9290 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20151027/1499e931/attachment-0001.bin>


More information about the Tagging mailing list