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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Disclaimer: I know almost nothing about Norway.

Aug 3, 2022, 10:15 by balchen at saint-etienne.no:

> Hi Mateusz. Thank you for responding.
>  
>  On 03.08.2022 09:16, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: 
>
>> You can also ask authors of QA tools to such as        JOSM validator to complain
>> in clearly dubious cases not reported already.
>>
>
> That would be very useful, since it seems at least the iD editor at    the moment enforces a different taggging standard from the    documented tagging standard at> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/No:Map_Features> .
>  
>
note that OSM Wiki can also be wrong!

the proper place to report problems in iD tagging presets is in general
https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema
(may be reported already)

>  
>
>> 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"
>>
>
> These two claims are about two completely different things. The    first claim is about the legal status, whereas the second claim is    about the tagging standard at> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/No:Map_Features> . 
>  > This is the very heart of the issue that I am raising -- that the      tagging standard > does not reflect the legal status.
>  
>
that is bad and should be avoided

>  
>
>> Is standalone cycleway without footway part        accessible to pedestrians or not?
>>
>
> It is, by law. > https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/1986-03-21-747> , § 19,    auto-translated:
>  
>  "Pedestrians must use the footpath, pavement or shoulder of the    road. Is it not reasonable because of the speed etc. or possible to    do this, pedestrians can use cycle paths, cycle lanes or    carriageways."
>  
>
then if not signed otherwise, foot=no or foot=discouraged is wrong  

>> But based on this description it appears that        maybe highway=cycleway without
>> further info should be treated as incomplete        tagging?
>>
>
> If that is the conclusion, which tag would we add to complete it?    foot=no/discouraged is wrong by law. What else?
>
based on description I would use
segregated=no foot=yes
if pedestrians are always allowed to use it. But I am definitely missing something h


> If you have a road that is signed as a cycleway (with no pedestrian    sidewalk), how would we tag that in a way that allows us to later    recognise from the tagging that "this is a signed cycleway with no    sidewalk", and not "this is a signed combined cycleway and footway".    
>
In Poland "this is a signed cycleway with nopart for pedestrians" gets
foot=yes bicycle=designated highway=path segregated=no
or
foot=yes highway=cycleway segregated=no

And "this is a signed combined cycleway and footway" gets
foot=designated bicycle=designated highway=path segregated=no
or
foot=designated highway=cycleway segregated=noor
bicycle=designated highway=footway segregated=no


>
> Tagging with foot=no is not correct, neither is foot=discouraged,    since pedestrians are legally allowed to use it (due to the already    quoted law).
>  
>
and following that is causing problem with routers, and people tag incorrectly for routers...

>  
>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> No, I do not mean like that. In this case, the pedestrian is on the    sign and I assume Polish law defines the meaning of that sign. In    Norway, we do not have that particular sign. 
>
It is marking "here is footway and cycleway, cycleway is on the right" and marks
that both pedestrians and cyclists should use own part only.

tagged as
foot=designated bicycle=designated highway=path segregated=yes
or
foot=designated highway=cycleway segregated=yesor
bicycle=designated highway=footway segregated=yes
>
> We only have the one    for combined cycleway and footway, the one for cycleway, and the one    for footway.
>  
>  >  >  
>  
>  This is how a cycleway with a sidewalk is signed in Norway:
>  
>  > https://miljopakken.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Stiklestadvn-m-syklist.jpg
>  
>  Road painting does not carry any legal status in Norway and is only    there to help guide road users to the appropriate
>  
>
So in https://miljopakken.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Stiklestadvn-m-syklist.jpg case
pedestrians and cyclists can actually use entire space and ignore road markings?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220803/b03e4055/attachment-0001.htm>