[OSM-talk-be] Cycleway or path?

[Ben Laenen]

Johan Huysmans wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I always find the hardest part of the mapping the choice of the tags.
> 
> For example, near the Dender between Dendermonde and Aalst
> <http://tile.openstreetmap.nl/?zoom=16&lat=50.99664&lon=4.07958&layers=B000
> 00FFF>. This is a way about 2m wide with asfalt (A car can drive there but
>  isn't allowed).
> 
> Which is the preferred tagging of such road?
> 
> I always use:
> highway = cycleway
> 
> But some time ago Emai changed this to:
> highway = path
> bicycle = yes
> vehicle = no
> surface = paved
> 
> 
> I don't want to start an edit war, therefore I throw this question in
> the group.

I may always be a little overzealous changing road/path classifications. It's 
basically that I have a set of rules in my head which resolve all those cases 
-- and given that they're the only existing rules, they're immediately 
superior than arbitrary rules :-)

My main concern in the rules is that you basically have to unambiguously know 
from the tags what vehicles are allowed on the road, in a simple way which 
doesn't require complete knowledge of the traffic code. It has to allow simple 
translation of traffic sign to tag.

And one of my rules is that highway=cycleway is exclusively for cycleways 
(i.e. blue round traffic signs with a bicycle on it -- signs D7, D9 or D10 -- 
or maybe just road markings). That's basically the definition of "fietspad" in 
the traffic code. So in this case there's just a sign which prohibits all 
vehicles, except bicycles (and maybe service vehicles, which are basically 
always allowed whatever the type of road, and don't really need tagging). So 
you get highway=path (as generic tag for something where cars or motorcycles 
can't go and doesn't have a blue round sign) + vehicle=no + bicycle=yes.

Cycleway/footway/bridleway have always been pretty problematic tags. They 
wouldn't really say what kind of path it was. If it's a path through a forest 
too small for cars and without signs, would it be bridleway or cycleway or 
footway? If you asked that question you'd certainly get many different 
opinions about it -- there would be rules taking state of the path into 
account, surface covering, rules à la "it allows cyclists so it's a cycleway". 
You'd have cycleways which would allow horses, but that was conveniently 
discarded when tagged in OSM -- I know, I did it myself once. And rules about 
mopeds is certainly not something one wants to think about... So then suddenly 
highway=path was approved and it is just asking to be used in situations like 
this, even though opinions may obviously differ.

So that's why I try to come up with easy to remember methods to tag the roads 
or paths -- it's up to some interpreter of the tags to decide from the tags 
whether some vehicle would be allowed. I've started to write down some things 
at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Eimai/Belgian_Roads which gives an 
idea.

Greetings
Ben