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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Aug 2, 2022, 23:42 by balchen at saint-etienne.no:

> 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. 
>
Good luck with the project! If you produce online-viewable map - feel free to email
also me!

Note that you can produce (shown on the main map or in additional one) display
of where OSM data is dubious or missing important tags and share it with a 
community.

You can also ask authors of QA tools to such as JOSM validator to complain
in clearly dubious cases not reported already.

If some important tag is missing - you can make JOSM preset / add or request
adding support in iD if not present already / propose StreetComplete quest
if not eligible.


>  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.
>
This seems to not match later claim that 
"cycleway with no sidewalk is tagged    highway=cycleway + foot=no/discouraged"

Is standalone cycleway without footway part accessible to pedestrians or not?


>  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 am unfamiliar with Norway and whether their foot=no/discouraged on cycleways
without footway part is a good tagging or not.

Maybe it matches actual legal rules and pedestrians are actually discouraged/banned
there - or maybe it is some kind of
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Mistagging_for_the_renderer

But based on this description it appears that maybe highway=cycleway without
further info should be treated as incomplete tagging?


> 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.
>
I do not see it from your description.

>  
>  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.
Based on info provided here it makes sense.
Maybe it also makes sense if there is a cycleway and footway along each other,
mapped as  separate lines,
like for example on this Polish footway + cycleway
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bike_road_-_panoramio_(1).jpg 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2019_Warszawa_aleje_Jerozolimskie,_chodnik_i_droga_rowerowa.jpg 

>  > 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. 
>
Then it seems wrong.

> 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. 
>
I am not really understanding this part. 

>  > 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.
>
also, foot= is for legal access - not for whether access should be present there or
what designed intended

>  > 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)? 
>
Sadly, I am not really understanding this part.


>  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?
>
What you mean by cycleway with sidewalk? If something like
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Witosa_bike_2.jpg
then foot=designated segregated=yes is an useful tagging.

It would be less useful in areas that do not have combined footway-cycleway
without segregation (segregated=no) like for example this one:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krakow_Przegorzaly_wal_wislany.jpg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220803/5427e89c/attachment-0001.htm>