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

Sat Jan 2 21:00:13 UTC 2021

I agree that segregated=no should be assumed to be the default value in
many cases.

In fact, in the United States segregation is so rare that I would assume
segregated=no in any case where segregated=yes is not added.

Also in Indonesia I can't recall seeing any segregated paths, so I would
always assume segregated=no there.

Perhaps in the Netherlands or Denmark segregation between foot and bike
traffic is common enough that it is necessary to add segregated=no to paved
highway=path features?

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 12:45 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> Jan 2, 2021, 21:25 by 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.
>
> I would not go so far, explicit segregated=no on highway=footway
> bicycle=yes
> is not incorrect
>
> It should be surface-independent, because there are (infrequent) cases of
> unpaved segregated foot-cyclepaths (I have seen them in parks).
>
> How the segregation looks like in such cases? Lane "painted" with other
> color of gravel?
>
> I have also seen cases of segregated foot-cycle paths where the
> pedestrians have pavement, and the cyclists do not, or vice versa.
>
> But in such cases at least one of foot and biycle tags was tagged as
> designated, right?
>
> 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.
>
> I have seen path exactly like that (not this one, it was an example photo
> as taking
> one was not feasible), correctly tagged as highway=footway + bicycle=yes
>
> JOSM for example in such case demands explicit segregated tag what seems
> pointless to me.
>
> So this would avoid the segregated yes/no issue.
>
> So you think that for say highway=footway + bicycle=yes segregated tag
> should not
> be mandatory?
>
> For unmarked footpath-like paved ways like the one in your Krakow park
> photo I presume that cycling is not  explicitly allowed, but tolerated.
>
> It is explicitly allowed (otherwise bicycle=yes would not be correct) by
> park rules
> that were established by city government.
>
>   Is there any signposting in your Krakow example?
>
> In some parks rules, including "no vehicles, except bicycles" are
> signposted.
> In some parks signs are not placed or were damaged since placing them many
> years ago.
> Local laws applicable can be found in the repository maintained by local
> government.
>
> In absence of explicit signs, I normally tag them as highway=footway;
> bicycle=permissive, not bicycle=yes.
>
> bicycle=permissive is incorrect tag in cases where cycling is illegal but
> tolerated and it
> is anyway not applicable in this case as cycling is explicitly legal.
>
> 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
>
> That is my problem, and I want to change that. This validator complaints
> triggered this thread.
>
>
>
>
> 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/20210102/6ea8d2f1/attachment.htm>