[Talk-GB] Clarifying tagging for footway/cycleway etc

[Andrew Chadwick (email lists)]

Richard Mann wrote:
> I'd conceived "highway=cycleway" meaning that the way was wide enough that
> pedestrians didn't need to use it (or there was an adjacent route for
> pedestrians). I think this is how it is in widespread use in the Netherlands
> / Germany.

Not sure quite what you mean here - a wider way is nicer for both
pedestrians and cyclists, surely?

Ways in OSM - at least as I've been told - are assumed to include any
pavements/cycleways there may be to the side of the road (both in-lane
and on-sidewalk), but not more segregated stuff. At least that's the
pattern I've been using.

> That doesn't work as well in the UK context, where we mostly have rather
> less width, such that pedestrians and cyclists are (sometimes uncomfortably)
> sharing the same space, even if there's a notional white line separating
> them. This is the situation for which I thought highway=cycle&footway would
> be a better description (ie something that's not one thing or the other but
> trying to be both). It's this type of path that neither highway=footway or
> highway=cycleway seems to fit.

highway=path with suitable access tags seems to fit the bill if it's
genuinely balanced between the two. I'd love to see some sort of urban
spotter's guide to these things that allows you to add up things like
signage, lack of tight "barrier=cycle_barrier"s, presence of dropped
kerbs, that odd variety of horizontal/vertical ridged tactile pavement
with the ridges going the wrong way on the cycle bit[1] and so on to
determine whether a way's a footway, cycleway, bridleway, path or
whatever, but I fear towns and cities vary a little too much for that to
be possible easily.

Width is "just" a physical characteristic, and can be represented pretty
cleanly already.

> I've no familiarity with the situation outside Europe; others will have to
> comment. I put this comment on Talk-gb because I thought it's the UK
> situation that needs a fix (what with our narrow cycle paths and complicated
> rights of way legislation). Or I could just tag them as highway=cycleway,
> with the understanding that in the UK you get less for that than you do in
> the Netherlands!

No kidding :(

I tend to default to footway in urban environments if there's no clear
winner or if there's a lot of steps or zig-zag / Oxfordshire 'Orrrible
barriers in the way, and cycleway only if it's really obviously made for
shared-use or cycle-only use. Case in point: the very new build at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.76562&lon=-1.19828&zoom=17&layers=0B00FTF
 , Sherwood Place, which has a proper cycleway access versus the
1960s(?) estate surrounding it. The cycleway is short, but has/is:

 * big grass verges (encourages people emptying their dogs to go stand
   off to one side)
 * straight
 * lighting (IIRC, have to add lit=yes if it is; oops...)
 * proper paved surface
 * that strange tactile paving stuff at entrances and exits
 * nice and wide
 * dropped kerbs for access and entry (though they made a bit of a
   balls-up of the one on the curve: it's not perpendicular, and
   there's some sort of bollardy nonsense there too)
 * continues into the road network

versus all the surrounding footways:

 * no verges, surrounded by buildings or fences
 * cycle barriers, gates and steps all over, at entrances and exits
 * largely discontinuous with the road network, but with some
   internal network continuity to it,
 * (they happen to be lit, mostly)
 * no dropped kerbs
 * no tactile pavement beyond the knobbly stuff, if that
 * narrow, no verges

Of course those are pretty much two extremes. In between the two, I tend
to tag

  highway=footway
  bicycle=yes    ;; (or designated)

if it's a bike-permitted path that's actually a bit rubbish for cycling,
and

  highway=cycleway
  foot=yes   ;; (or designated)

if it's one of the better ones. Bit subjective, I know. There's probably
an exact balance point between the two for which highway=path + foot=
and bicycle= tags, but I've never really encountered it in practice.

We could expand use of highway=path for the great in-between, which'd
give us even more degrees of cycle-vs-footness. Arguably my in-betweens
should be done with highway=path and shadings of =designated, =yes, and
=no for the access types.

(I wonder if there's such a thing as =discouraged...)

[1]
http://www.dft.gov.uk/transportforyou/access/peti/guidanceontheuseoftactilepav6167?page=10

-- 
Andrew Chadwick