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

Sun Apr 5 18:48:29 UTC 2020

It sounds as we have not yet made clear the difference between MTB routes
and MTB leisure tracks. The former are routes that are suitable for
mountain bikers, but they are on ways shared with other users, whereas the
latter are for the exclusive use with MTBs - no other user is admitted.
That is a similar distinction as between a road and a motor racing track.

On Sun, 5 Apr 2020, 19:27 Adam Franco, <adamfranco at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 3:49 AM Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> ...
>>
> Although that feels most logical to me, since the sentiment here is
>> strongly against this view about highway=cycleway including mountain bike
>> tracks, I'm proposing instead:
>>
>> Designed/mostly used for city cycling (excluding mountain biking) ->
>> highway=cycleway
>> Designed/mostly used for mountain biking (excluding city cycling) ->
>> highway=path + path=mtb
>> Not designed for any specific mode/mixed use -> highway=path
>>
>
> Thank you for putting together this  highway=path + path=mtb suggestion,
> Andrew. This is first suggestion on this thread that has felt like a good
> direction forward. First and foremost, mountain bike trails are paths,
> anything further is a qualifier that adds precision, but not a
> contradiction.
>
> In contrast, proposals to change to leisure=track feel wrong because these
> are routable ways and dropping highway=* removes them from the routable
> network. Similarly, fiddling with access tags to imply mountain-biking
> trails feels like adding too much inference and dual-purpose to these tags
> that then complicate the access scheme. In general, I think expanding the
> path=* key would be a good way to add additional precision for other
> "special purpose" paths.
>
> I'm a long-time mountain biker and also a bicycle commuter, so I can
> sympathize with both camps. While my area (Vermont, USA) has some
> special-purpose mountain-bike trails (with ramps and the like) that are
> built at ski areas, most of our trails are built and cut by and for
> mountain bikers, but are also used by trail-runners and walkers. The "built
> for mountain bikers" part means that they have been sculpted to follow the
> terrain in a way that is fun on a mountain bike, with turn radii and grades
> that allow a flowing cadence. Often elevation gains/drops are managed to
> optimize for time coasting downhill, rather than dropping steeper than is
> needed only to have to climb again. These trails are also usually great for
> hiking/running, but also feel great on a bike. In contrast, a trail "built
> for hiking" might not worry about twisting between some large jumbled rocks
> that tires simply can't traverse, or might use steep, straight grades and
> stairs that "waste" elevation gains in a way that is less-fun on wheels.
> Long story short the vast majority of specialized mountain-bike trails
> *are* highway=path, they are just a particular flavor of highway=path.
>
> I would strongly support a formalized proposal based on what you put
> together.
>
> Best,
> Adam
>
> On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 3:49 AM Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks for everyone's good feedback and discussion. I feel we are getting
>> closer to a conclusion.
>>
>> Before this discussion my view on how it should work was:
>>
>> Designed/mostly used for vehicles, forestry, agriculture, bush fire
>> trucks (known as fire trails in Australia) -> highway=track
>> Designed/mostly used for walking (including hiking) -> highway=footway
>> Designed/mostly used for bicycles (including mountain biking) ->
>> highway=cycleway
>> Designed/mostly used for horses -> highway=bridleway
>> Not designed for any specific mode/mixed use (no formal designation) ->
>> highway=path
>>
>> Although that feels most logical to me, since the sentiment here is
>> strongly against this view about highway=cycleway including mountain bike
>> tracks, I'm proposing instead:
>>
>> Designed/mostly used for city cycling (excluding mountain biking) ->
>> highway=cycleway
>> Designed/mostly used for mountain biking (excluding city cycling) ->
>> highway=path + path=mtb
>> Not designed for any specific mode/mixed use -> highway=path
>>
>> The reasoning behind this takes into consideration:
>>
>> bicycle= as an access tag should refer to any class of bicycles by
>> default. Today I was walking a track which had a no bicycles sign, meaning
>> all types of bikes are disallowed. Conversely bicycle=yes just means that
>> bicycles are legally/physically allowed, it does not indicate suitability
>> by a specific type of bicycle. I don't think I've ever seen signage which
>> says no mountain bikes but you can use a road bike, or vice versa. If there
>> is then we should use sub bicycle access tags like road_bike=, mtb=, bmx=
>> etc. You could have a path which is clearly a mountain bike track but
>> officially bicycles are not allowed. So based on this we can't use these
>> kinds of access tags to define the type of path they must be kept
>> independent.
>>
>> Not all mountain bike tracks are mtb=designated. Many paths are built for
>> and used mostly by mountain bikes, key giveaways are jumps, corner banks
>> and other technical features, but not officially signposted or marked for
>> use by mountain bikes. Conversely the track could be signposted for use by
>> mountain bikes but not actually be a mountain bike track, eg. it could be
>> highway=track which is not a mountain bike track, but indicated as a way
>> for use by mountain bikes so mtb=designated.
>>
>> So I'm proposing the access tags bicycle= refer to any/all bicycles. mtb=
>> become an access tag (mtb=designated for signposted mountain bike).
>> path=mtb become a tag to say the path on the ground here is designed=mostly
>> used for mountain biking.
>>
>> I feel this is better than a new highway=singletrack tag since renderers,
>> routers, etc can still interpret the path without making changes. If we
>> move to a new tag, these tracks will disappear from routers and maps
>> overnight.
>>
>> All other tags like surface, smoothness, mtb:scale, route=mtb still
>> apply. leisure=track would still apply to short loop tracks like a BMX pump
>> track or a velodrome, but not to longer A to B tracks.
>>
>> Thoughts? I can help work on the wiki proposal for these tag changes
>> (mtb= as an access tag and path=mtb) but keen to hear feedback here first.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20200405/7faa51af/attachment-0001.htm>