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

Niels Elgaard Larsen elgaard at agol.dk
Sat Jan 2 22:55:03 UTC 2021


På Sat, 2 Jan 2021 13:00:13 -0800
Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> skrev:
>I agree that segregated=no should be assumed to be the default value in
>many cases.

>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?


Yes, it is very common in Denmark.
It do not add segregated to all highway=path features.
But I try to add segregated  to all
 highway=path,foot=designated,bicycle=designated

segregated=no is the default, but if we add it explicitly, then both
data consumers and mappers will know if it actually is not segregated
or if is just not tagged yet. 

Actually in Denmark we can also have segregation with horses
See
https://www.infragroup.dk/gfx/pdf/Vejskilte%20Katalog.pdf
Search for "D 26,1", "D 26,3", "D 26,4", and "D 26,5"

The segregation can be:
(foot,horse) or (foot/bicycle,horse)

>-- 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
>>




More information about the Tagging mailing list