[Tagging] Tagging cycleways to distinguish them from combined cycle and footways

[Jens Glad Balchen]

Hello everyone.

I'm in the process of creating a cycle road map of the Stavanger region 
in Norway. One of the desirable outcomes of that process is to be able 
to show the various forms of cycle roads that we have, and to visually 
illustrate how much of each we have, and where we have them. To 
accomplish this, the OSM data in the region has needed a lot of cleaning 
up to accurately reflect what is on the ground, since tagging practices 
appear to have changed over time, and have been (and probably still are) 
implemented inconsistently between contributors.

There is one remaning issue that I'm currently trying to resolve in the 
Norwegian OSM forum, but participation is low, so I thought I'd raise 
the issue in a broader scope.

We share common legal definitions of cycle roads with much of Europe, in 
that we have cycleways designated for cycling, that are legally 
accessible to pedestrians, and combined cycle and footways that are 
designated for both groups. Cycleways may or may not have a sidewalk for 
pedestrians, and may or may not have separated lanes.

Pedestrians are compelled in the Norwegian highway code to use footways, 
sidewalks, or the road's shoulder, except when or where that wouldn't be 
possible, practical, or safe. In these cases pedestrians may use 
cycleways, cycle lanes or carriageways (cycleway and carriageway in this 
context meaning the part of the road meant for regular vehicle traffic, 
so not including the hard or soft shoulder).

The current tagging standard (per 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/No:Map_Features) is to tag a 
combined cycle and footway with highway=cycleway + foot=designated. A 
cycleway with a sidewalk is tagged highway=cycleway + foot=designated + 
segregated=yes + sidewalk=left/right. A cycleway with no sidewalk is 
tagged highway=cycleway + foot=no/discouraged. There's a parenthesis 
saying foot=no/discouraged applies if the cycleway is not intended for 
pedestrians.

The strict interpretation of this standard is that highway=cycleway by 
itself denotes a cycleway, designated for cycling, where pedestrians 
have legal right of access. The feedback from the few participating 
Norwegian OSM forum users, however, is that any highway=cycleway should 
be regarded as a combined cycle and footway,with reference to how most 
people and OSM contributors are not aware of the differences between the 
various types of road. This approach requires foot=no/discouraged for a 
road to be a regarded as a cycleway proper.

I would like to hear any opinions from the OSM community on the issues 
below.

_Tagging foot=no

_The highway code explicitly allows pedestrians the use of cycleways and 
carriageways when or where they find that it is not possible, practical, 
or safe to use a different road or the road's shoulder. It follows that 
foot=no can only be (correctly) applied when there is a sign prohibiting 
entry for pedestrians. foot=no can never generally be applied to 
cycleways as an consequence of a road being a cycleway.
__
__Tagging foot=discouraged
__
The legal basis is debatable, but not completely unreasonable. 
Pedestrians are not explicitly discouraged from using cycleways, and 
certainly not in the sense that the OSM wiki presents the definition of 
*=discouraged. But if one chooses to interpret the highway code that 
way, pedestrians are equally discouraged from using carriageways. It 
follows that this interpretation of pedestrians being discouraged from 
using a road is derived from the type of road.

Tagging foot=discouraged on a highway=cycleway in this scenario would be 
optional, explicit, and redundant, and equally so tagging 
foot=discouraged on every 
highway=trunk/primary/secondary/residential/service/unclassified.

Note that in either case, using the road's (hard or soft) shoulder is 
/always/ /explicitly allowed/ -- the only discouraging one can possibly 
interpret from the highway code is from the use of the 
cycleway/carriageway itself.

_Tagging foot=no/discouraged if the cycleway is not intended for pedestrians

_This phrase makes sense if there is a sign prohibiting walking, in 
which case the only correct tag is foot=no. In all other situations, 
pedestrians are explicitly allowed access by law. Any intentions of 
planners or officials are neither observable nor verifiable.
__
_foot=discouraged is required to define a cycleway in OSM_

This logic completely reverses the causality of the most open-minded 
interpretation of the highway code. How can a cycleway be defined by 
foot=discouraged when foot=discouraged -- at best -- follows from the 
road being a cycleway or a carriageway?

_Tagging a cycleway proper in OSM?

_The intuitive and logical representation of a cycleway proper would be 
highway=cycleway. If the Norwegian OSM community cannot agree on this 
being the case, how could we tag a cycleway in a manner that is logical, 
consistent, and accurate (ref the above)?

Bonus question:

_Tagging foot=designated on a cycleway with a sidewalk_

This seems to principally be the same as tagging foot=designated on any 
highway=* with a sidewalk. It seems weird, and redundant, but probably 
not harmful, so long as no further meaning is attributed to or derived 
from the tagging?

I look forward to hearing any opinions on the subject.

Cheers,

Jens
__
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220802/7def2b58/attachment.htm>