[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - cycle expressways

Fri Aug 5 12:43:09 UTC 2022

Hi Jens,

 > There is a specific sign for a motorway.

This is precisely what I mean: OSM maps ways marked with this traffic 
sign as motorway. The definition for mappers is then "there is such a 
traffic sign present - here is a list of them for every country". The 
respective government is then responsible of making sure the actual 
roads are up to spec - which might not be the case. For example: in 
Norway, there need to be fences along the motorway (as you state in your 
email). If the fence is missing (e.g. because there is a cliff on one 
side, making it impossible to place one), this does not devaluate the 
motorway to another road type. Removing the traffic signs however 
_does_, as it changes the default tagging rules.

If Norway places traffic signs for cycle express ways - with specific 
traffic rules , then this can be tagged and the definition is 
straightforward as "there is a cycle expressway traffic sign present".

In many countries, there is no official designation as "cycle highway"; 
or the "cycle highway"-tagging doesn't have traffic law implications, 
such as in Belgium  where the cycle highways rather act as a routing 
network with the promise of having "high quality cycling paths once in 
the future". Right now, it _is_ a patchwork of different roads and 
crossings so we can't make any assumptions about the physical appearance 
of the actual roads.
(Note that you _do_ include the belgian cycle highways in your tagging 
proposal - partly why I'm so vigilant about this issue - please remove 
this from your proposal!).

Furthermore, many motorways _do_ have physical properties mapped, such 
as number of lanes, whether they are lit at night or not (some parts in 
Belgium are not, for example), what the surface is (concrete and asphalt 
are common here), what the maximum allowed speed is (and if it is 
missing, the _traffic sign_ we mapped implicitly has some rules about 
it). But again, it is the traffic sign per country that decides this - 
not the build intent of the build quality. Again, in your example, the 
'trunk link' is decided by the actual traffic signs, not how it feels or 
what it looks like.

And yes, I am in favour of having physical data as this allows for other 
usecases too - e.g. planning supersized transport.
Furthermore, there is little value in mapping "standards", as these 
standards might change in the future. Having physical features is 
better, as it can be queried which parts are up to some standards and 
e.g. a cycling organization can query which locations do meet a stricter 
standard (the european cycling federation has a higher standard, for 
example). Furthermore,which standards should be mapped 
<https://xkcd.com/927/> in OSM?

So, I think you should work out a tagging scheme for Norway for express 
cycleways. Data consumers _can_ make assumptions about the road then, 
but having a generic cycleway=expressway feels like translating 
legislation to other countries where it simply is not applicable.

Kind regards,
Pieter

On 2022-08-05 14:02, Jens Glad Balchen wrote:
>
> 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 (a s 
> 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/a5e970ae/attachment-0001.htm>