[Tagging] is explicit segregated tag needed on all ways allowing cyclists and pedestrians?

[Volker Schmidt]

I see no problem with the "segregated" key.
It is only applicable to paths that carry explicit signs for
bicycle=designated and foot=designted.

It should be surface-independent, because there are (infrequent) cases of
unpaved segregated foot-cyclepaths (I have seen them in parks). I have also
seen cases of segregated foot-cycle paths where the pedestrians have
pavement, and the cyclists do not, or vice versa.

Your first example (Réserve naturelle nationale de la baie de Somme) looks
like a highway=track; motor_vehicle=no/private. Are you sure that it is a
designated foot-cycle-path. So this would avoid the segregated yes/no issue.

For unmarked footpath-like paved ways like the one in your Krakow park
photo I presume that cycling is not  explicitly allowed, but tolerated.  Is
there any signposting in your Krakow example? In absence of explicit signs,
I normally tag them as highway=footway; bicycle=permissive, not bicycle=yes.

In this case, JOSM has recently started insisting on having the explicit
segregated tag.
Insisting on "segregated" tagging when there are no blue disk signs or
equivalents is debatable.indeed




On Sat, 2 Jan 2021 at 18:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:segregated since 2011 claims that
> "This key has no default value and should be tagged on all shared ways!"
>
> It seems to me that I misunderstand something or that recommendation should
> be modified
>
> case 1, unpaved paths:
>
> in many cases both cyclists and pedestrians are allowed on unpaved paths
> tagging may be for example
>
> highway=path
> bicycle=designated
> foot=designated
> vehicle=no
> surface=dirt
>
> for something that looks like
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2017-07_R%C3%A9serve_naturelle_nationale_de_la_baie_de_Somme_10.jpg
>
> It seems to me that segregated=yes is extremely rare for unpaved paths,
> and explicit segregated=no is not wrong here, but I would not claim
> that it should be tagged.
>
> I would say that for unpaved surfaces it is safe to assume segregated=no,
> OK to tag it, but I would not strongly encourage it.
>
> In other words, surface=unpaved, surface=dirt, surface=sand and other
> similar values indicate segregated=no
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> case 2, nondesignated + designated use:
>
> there is plenty of paths that are primarily for pedestrians, but with
> allowed use for cyclists
>
> typical tagging may be along lines of
>
> highway=footway
> bicycle=yes
> surface=asphalt
>
> such path may look like
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krakow_3Maja_Park_Jordana_widok_05_A-579.JPG
>
> In this case segregated=no is clear, as in case of designated bicycle space
> on path it would be bicycle=designated, not bicycle=yes
>
> Similarly for
>
> highway=path
> foot=designated
> bicycle=yes
>
> highway=path
> foot=yes
> bicycle=designated
>
> highway=cycleway
> foot=yes
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Or is it actually strongly preferable to have explicit segregated also in
> this cases and
> QA/Validators/editors etc should demand an explicit segregated=no (or
> =yes) tag
> in such cases?
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210102/8e94f4cf/attachment-0001.htm>