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

Colin Smale colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Sat Jan 2 21:24:54 UTC 2021


In NL cycle traffic is kept segregated from foot traffic, unless there
is a cycle track but no footway; in that case you can walk on the cycle
track (in the absence of signs to the contrary). So footway means
footway, and cycleway means cycleway. There are quite a few grey areas
though, principally involving things like "hoverboards" that aren't
strictly legal anyway. 

On 2021-01-02 22:00, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

> 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 
_______________________________________________
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/20210102/360f3e51/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list