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

[Peter Elderson]

I never tag segregated=no. On a single way, only segregated=yes has any
meaning. If it's not segregated=yes, it's not segregated.

And it's only segregated if a sign makes clear which side is for which
traffic. You can't assume paved=cycling and unpaved=walking I have just
walked a lot bidirectional ways with visibly separated "lanes", only nobody
can tell which side is for pedestrians and which for bicycles. Because
there are pedestrians who prefer unpaved and pedestrians who prefer paved
or hardened, and the same goes for cyclists and motorcyclists, and
sometimes even horses can take any "lane", segregated makes no sense at all
there.

Even in cities, only the most clearcut cases with signs or very distinct
paving with kerbs or lining deserve an explicit segregated tag.

If not, it's just a single way with explicit or implicit access and maybe
designation.

A bench at the side is not enough to tag the way as a footway.

Peter Elderson


Op za 2 jan. 2021 om 21:27 schreef Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com>:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210102/1b87fb1f/attachment-0001.htm>