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

[Jens Glad Balchen]

On 03.08.2022 12:13, Jeroen Hoek wrote:
> On 03-08-2022 12:02, Jens Glad Balchen wrote:> The proposed way to 
> circumvent "any highway=cycleway is a combined
>> cycleway and footway unless specficially tagged otherwise" is to tag 
>> it with foot=no/discouraged, contrary to what the law states. This is 
>> the crux of the issue, that we are forced to tag contrary to the 
>> legal status just to be able to circumvent the (IMO) faulty and 
>> illogical initial stance.
>
> Can you tell the difference between the two types based on the traffic 
> signs? In that case your presets could solve this issue for mappers by 
> including traffic_sign=NO:522 or NO:520, and leave the foot=* on what 
> is legally allowed, right?
>
> In the Netherlands we do this with traffic_sign=NL:G11, NL:G12a, and 
> NL:G13. By now most cycleways are tagged with one of those, and you 
> can distinguish them that way if desired.

Yes, we can tell the difference if we tag the way with a traffic sign.

We could also tell the difference if we tag foot=designated for combined 
cycleways and footway and foot=yes for cycleways. This follows directly 
from the traffic sign. So if a traffic sign is tagged, foot=* has 
exactly one correct value.

The objection to tagging correct foot=* values is that OSM contributors 
in general are not able to or do not have the knowledge to do this 
correctly. The problem today is that foot=* does not accurately reflect 
the legal status. In that respect, if people tag with a traffic sign, it 
is likely that there will be conflicting foot=* values. E.g. 
traffic_sign=NO:520 + foot=designated. Map makers would have to chose 
which tag to believe.

It is likely that only highway code afficionados will tag with 
traffic_sign, and only bother to tag where traffic_sign=NO:520, since 
traffic_sign=NO:522 would be the implied state. Therefore, I expect the 
number of conflicts to be low. For the same reason, it also has a high 
chance of surviving edits.
On the other hand, maintenance will be equally low.

It's the best suggestion so far :)

Cheers,

Jens