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

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Sat Jan 2 21:18:18 UTC 2021


In Poland tagging segregated=yes/no on
paved ways which are designated for both
cyclists and pedestrians is useful.

Jan 2, 2021, 22:00 by joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com:

> 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/20210102/7f90ed6b/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list