[Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

Ken Kilfedder spiregrain_osm at ksglp.org.uk
Thu Dec 10 12:41:20 UTC 2020

As a break from 'tagging for the renderer', I'd like to see rendering for the tags.  It would save a lot of heartarche if the map on osm.org showed shared-use paths explicitly.   Perhaps as follows:-
 * highway=cycleway with nothing to say that foot is allowed - blue dashes as at present.
 * highway=footway with nothing to say bicyles are allowed - red dashes as at present.
 * highway=cycleway with foot expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line (maybe blue long dash interspersed with red short dash)
 * highway=footway with bikes expressly allowed - blue/red dashed line (maybe red long dash interspersed with blue short dash)
 * With segregated=yes - possibly, at higher zoom levels, show blue dashes in parallel with red - the right way round if possible.
I think that would solve the issue here, and prevent a lot of anonymous notes.

Anyone know off hand where/how to propose this?  Or even willing to help on coding up a demo?

spiregrain_osm at ksglp.org.uk

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020, at 12:24 PM, Thomas Jarvis wrote:
> I've reached a stalemate with another mapper about the tagging of a rural shared use path. He mapped the path initially a few years ago as highway=cycleway and I've recently changed it to highway=path, bicycle=designated & foot=designated (as well as the other tags that apply to it).
> My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a greater number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2), the path is designed for both types of user & not the whole route has a blacktop surface (therefore not suitable for road bikes, these bits do have their surface tagged though so that shouldn't be an issue for routers).
> His argument for keeping it as highway=cycleway is because his render is not configured to show highway=path & bicycle=designated the same as highway=cycleway. Other reasons are because it is part of the NCN Route 88, as such it is "cared" for sustrans. Also it is a  well used cycle route. Both of which are very much true, and are tagged with the appropriate relations to reflect this.
> I've put this to the Data Working Group, and they have suggested that I ask the community here to see what the consensus is.
> I don't mind what the outcome is, however I am not satisfied with the sole reason being because it renders differently.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94598759
> Thank you,
> -- 
> *_T_*homas *_J_*
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20201210/8d232957/attachment.htm>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list