[Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

[Yves]

I disagree here, a cycle map should not ignore mtb:scale, and a cycle map for commuting should probably ignore mtb:scale beyond 1.
The exact same for footways and sac_scale. 
There will always be discussions and mapper's errors for cycleway, so the safest way to go for a renderer or a router is to consider specialized tags such as mtb:*. 
Yves 
Yves Cainaud 

Le 2 avril 2020 11:10:58 GMT+02:00, Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com> a écrit :
>If a highway is mtb:scale=2 it is definitely not a cycleway. It is a
>highway=path with mtb:scale=2
>If this were to encounter a "cycleway" with mtb:scale=2 , I would
>consider
>this an error and retag it as highway=path without hesitation.
>
>I agree, that this is not explicitly stated in the bicycle wiki page,
>and
>should be added there, but I would assume that this is the common
>understanding. Anything else would cause major problems with the huge
>stock
>of existing highway=cycleway in OSM that have no mtb:scale tag. Routers
>for
>non-MTB bicycles would all need to change and evaluate the mtb:scale
>tag.
>
>There is already a similar problem with the OpenCycleMap rendering in
>the
>sense that it renders a dedicated cycle path in the same way as a path
>with
>bicycle=yes. This has the effect that many MTB friends have added
>bicycle=yes to "normal" hiking paths to make them appear as MTB
>friendly on
>the map, but also with the problem that when I look at that map I
>wrongly
>see a cycle paths where I would never be able to pass with my loaded
>touring bike.
>
>Please keep paths that can only be used by MTB clearly different from
>cycleways that can be used non-MTB bicycles.
>
>
>
>On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 10:11, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> My view based on current usage, reading of the wiki and general
>opinion is
>> that highway=cycleway is meant for any path that is either
>> designed/intended for bicycles or specifically designated
>(signposted) for
>> bicycles, irrespective of if it's an urban track or mountain biking
>track.
>>
>> So a mountain bike track and an urban cycle track should both be
>tagged
>> with highway=cycleway as the primary tag. surface= and smoothness=
>can help
>> for both to help guide users on which kind of bicycle the track is
>suitable
>> for, and mtb:scale=/mtb:scale:imba= are used to indicate this is a
>> designated mountain biking track.
>>
>> highway=path is specifically for a general use / unspecified path,
>which a
>> mountain biking track may be if it's informal/shared, but purpose
>built and
>> signposted mountain bike tracks don't fall into that category.
>>
>> A similar thing applies to hiking tracks, sometimes they are
>designated
>> walking paths so use highway=footway + surface + sac_scale, but
>sometimes
>> they are just an unmarked or mixed use path so are highway=path +
>surface +
>> sac_scale.
>>
>> Open to other opinions or comments.
>>
>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 18:56, Phyks <phyks at phyks.me> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> A discussion in CyclOSM issue tracker [1] spotted that there exists
>>> around 3500 highway=cycleway around the world which have specific
>>> mountain bikes (MTB) tags. In particular, around 800
>highway=cycleway
>>> around the world declare a mtb:scale greater than 2, which would
>make
>>> them impassable without a proper mountain bike. Such cycleways would
>not
>>> be passable with a regular city bike. One example of such a case is
>at
>>> [2].
>>>
>>> Looking at the wiki page [3],
>>> "the highway=cycleway tag indicates a separate way for the use of
>>> cyclists"
>>> which does not mandate explicitly that a cycleway be accessible with
>any
>>> kind of bikes and should also cover dedicated paths for MTB.
>However,
>>> the documentation around cycleways and bike features is very
>oriented
>>> towards city cycling and there is no illustration about MTB-specific
>>> cycleways.
>>>
>>> So, is this considered a valid tagging or should it be represented
>by
>>> another highway class (path, track, etc)? If this is valid, I
>propose to
>>> add a statement in the wiki explicitly mentioning that cycleways can
>be
>>> restricted for specific kinds of bicycles, for future questions.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/cyclosm/cyclosm-cartocss-style/issues/208
>>> [2]
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/86978431#map=17/41.26426/-73.91907
>>> [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway
>>>
>>> --
>>> Phyks
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20200402/be2440f7/attachment-0001.htm>