[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - cycle expressways

[Jens Glad Balchen]

On 05.08.2022 14:43, Pieter Vander Vennet wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Except for Australia, where this is apparently no official sign or 
classification, and the OSM community is duck tagging motorways.

> 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.
>

I agree. There are formal processes in place (at least in Norway....) 
where road planners or road builders can apply for exemptions from 
specific requirements of a physical road class. When these exemptions 
are granted, they do not affect the classification. If the approval 
board finds that the exemption is too significant, they will either say 
no, or say that the road needs a different class.

> 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".
>

I would assume most of Europe have some sort of sign for cycleways 
Thumbnail for version as of 15:17, 4 August 2008 that carry legal 
implications in the highway code about the legal use of the road, and 
also carry build quality requirements as defined by each country's 
public roads authority. At least in Norway this is the case.

The sign for cycle expressway Thumbnail for version as of 10:58, 5 
August 2022 does not carry additional legal requirement in the highway 
code, but does carry additional build quality requirements as defined by 
the public roads authority.

> In many countries, there is no official designation as "cycle 
> highway"; or the "cycle highway"-tagging doesn't have traffic law 
> implications
>

OSM taggers in these will be free to not use the tag or to implement 
duck tagging, like Australians do with motorways.

> 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.
>

We too experience that cycle network "standards" and promises of high 
quality roads do not match the reality of the roads built or designated 
as part of the route. *It is precisely for this reason* that it is 
important to tag *both the route* and *what the physical road is*.

For all other physical roads, we can tag them easily in OSM using 
highway=tertiary, highway=service, highway=cycleway, highway=footway + 
footway=sidewalk this is very common in Norway), highway=cycleway + 
surface=fine_gravel, etc.
I think I have mapped every type of road you can imagine on a cycle 
"route".
But when I try to map a cycle expressway, _I have no way to map it__. It 
maps exactly like a regular cycleway_._I want to be able to tell the 
difference, because there is a real-world difference. And I can't!_

> (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!).
>

I already changed that part yesterday after it became clear that BE 
cycle highways are not what they are being described as. I'm sorry for 
the confusion. Every Norwegian source on them, and all the sources I can 
find online (both English and Dutch/Flemish) say that they ARE a road 
quality, but I readily and easily accept that they aren't and that they 
are merely a route designation.

> Furthermore, many motorways _do_ have physical properties mapped
>

Yes, but this is not a requirement for OSM and consumers to treat them 
as motorways. It's a refinement.

> Furthermore, there is little value in mapping "standards", as these 
> standards might change in the future.
>

Any standard can change in the future, even that for the motorway sign. 
We need to keep OSM updated. This is not a counterargument.

> 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).
>

I agree, but this is a refinement. We should be able to do things 
without capturing the tiny details.

> Furthermore,which standards should be mapped <https://xkcd.com/927/> 
> in OSM?
>

If there is an official standard (like in Norway), use it.
If there isn't, agree on one (like in Australia), or agree not to tag 
according a standard.

It's up to you.

Jens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220805/95efca5f/attachment.htm>