[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - cycle expressways

[Jens Glad Balchen]

On 05.08.2022 12:30, Pieter Vander Vennet wrote:
>
> As far as I know, a `motorway` is a road **with control of access**, 
> i.e. this is a legal designation. If there is a traffic sign which 
> forbids the use of non-car traffic, it should be mapped as motorway.
>

There is a specific sign for a motorway. sf-20051007-1219-502-01.gif

The access meaning of this sign (at least in Norway) is:
* prohibited for pedestrians
* prohibited for cyclists
* prohibited for (motor) scooters
* prohibited for (motor) tractors
* prohibited for any (motor) vehicle with a contructed speed of less 
than 45 kph.

The other meanings of this sign (at least in Norway) are:

* a minimum speed limit of 90 kph
* minimum two lanes in each direction
* minimum lane width of 3.5 meters
* physical separation between travel directions
* no at-grade crossings
* on-ramps and off-ramps instead of direct entry
* no vertical gradient above 5%
* fences along the entire perimeter of the road to prevent access by 
animals and pedestrians
* traffic route signs must be white text on blue background (as opposed 
to non-motorway roads which must have traffic route signs with black 
text on yellow background)


If someone saw a road with this sign on it sf-20051007-1219-306-8-01.gif 
and decided to tag that as a motorway, like you are now advocating, I 
would remove that tag as obviously incorrect. I don't agree with your 
assertion in the least.

> > The problem with "mapping the physical properties of the road" is: 
> how would you map design speed, line of sight, curve radius, turning 
> lanes, no level crossings, etc. in a way that an OSM data consumer 
> (like a map renderer or a routing engine) could conclude "This is a 
> high quality cycleway" and "This is a lower quality cycleway"?
> If you tried to use the same argument on highway=motorway, how would 
> you map it if you were to only "map the physical properties of the road"?
>
> How are these things currently mapped? I'm breaking them down on how 
> they can be handled:
>

These tings that you list are *_not_* currently mapped this way for 
motorways. And I assume you are not in favour of ditching 
highway=motorway in favour of your extensive tag list, massive 
geoqueries, and complicated geometrical calculations simply to be able 
to know if something is a motorway?

> Another problem I do have with this proposal is that it is gonna be 
> very hard to create an "express-way"-definition that is somewhat 
> applicable worldwide and is easy to apply.
>

It doesn't need to applicable worldwide any more than highway=motorway 
or highway=trunk need to be applicable world-wide.

This is a Norwegian trunk road: https://goo.gl/maps/7PfJpKrartJAYy4V6
This is a Belgian trunk road: https://goo.gl/maps/ALoDtXp2VpAeRm2x5

We need to accept that there are differences in standards.

> For example, what in Belgium is considered a high-quality "cycle 
> highway" is considered a normal cycleway in the Netherlands.
> The definition in your email is "a cycleway that is built to a 
> significantly higher standard than a regular cycleway."
> What is a `regular cycleway`? How wide should it be? What surface 
> should it have?
>

That can vary from country to country, exactly like the requirements for 
a motorway or a trunk road vary.

> And then I'm not even touching upon real-world difficulties. What if 
> such an expressway is only half constructed?
>

The part that is constructed gets the tag and the part that isn't 
constructed of course does not get the tag, since it isn't constructed. 
Are these really the issues you have in Belgium? I am amazed.

> Belgium is an excellent example, where `Fietssnelweg` precisely means 
> the `route relation`, */not/* a certain standard of building as this 
> is sometimes not possible.
>

Then that is the opposite to Norway, where 'Sykkelekspressveg' means a 
certain standard of building, regardless of the route relation. So you 
are free in Belgium to not use the new tag until such time as Belgium 
introduces a physical requirement for cycle expressways, or you are free 
as an OSM community to decide that you want to duck tag cycle 
expressways like the Australians duck tag their motorways. It's up to you.

I don't see how that translates into opposing that we can tag something 
that is both clearly defined and clearly signed in Norway with an 
appropriate tag, that could also be applicable in other parts of the 
world with a generally agreed-upon understanding of what the tag means.

> Furthermore, there is a huge difference in preferences of cyclists. 
> Some will want to take the cycle highway to get to their job quickly, 
> others will shun away from it and prefer the quieter, more scenic routes.
>
> A desirable route for one cyclist might be horrible for another 
> cyclist. With the company I work at, we went quite far in defining 
> multiple aspects to a road (expected, speed, feeling of safety, 
> feeling of comfort, ...) to mix and match this in different profiles. 
> See 
> https://github.com/pietervdvn/AspectedRouting/blob/master/BuildingAProfile.md 
> for more info.
>

My proposal is not about tagging routes, and it is not about tagging 
routes as being either commuter routes or touristic routes.

Please do not confuse the concept of road quality with the concept of 
commuter or touristic routes.

Jens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220805/dec489a5/attachment.htm>