[Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths
mark at good-stuff.co.uk
Thu Dec 10 15:17:59 UTC 2020
On 10/12/2020 12:41, Ken Kilfedder wrote:
> 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.
I entirely agree! I think the real problem here is that the standard OSM
render simply doesn't handle highways restricted to non-motorised users
very well at all, and hence there's a strong incentive to people to
modify the tags to try and workaround that issue.
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.
...this distinction doesn't really exist in the UK. The default legal
position for for any public highway in the UK is that any permission for
any class of user also includes permission for any class of user prior
to that in the hierarchy, unless explicitly stated (and signed)
otherwise. The hierarchy in question being:
horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles
So any cycleway in the UK is also a footway, unless pedestrians are
explicitly prohibited, and any road that cars can use is also open to
cyclists and pedestrians (unless, again, they are explicitly prohibited,
such as on motorways). There's certainly no general legal distinction
between a cycleway that allows pedestrians and a footway that allows
cycles - they are both, in law, exactly the same, and are both in law, a
shared-use path. Even a segregated shared-use path is still legally
usable across its entire width by pedestrians, even if that's typically
Personally, I think the default OSM map render should follow that
hierarchy, with minor highways and paths having a three-way distinction:
pedestrians and cycles
(I'd disregard horses in this context, although tagging bridleways in
rural areas would still be useful and it would be helpful to have that
indicated somehow on the default render).
> I think that would solve the issue here, and prevent a lot of anonymous
> Anyone know off hand where/how to propose this? Or even willing to help
> on coding up a demo?
Another issue here is that the default OSM map render is intended to be
global, but other countries don't necessarily have the same highway
hierarchy as the UK. In some countries, cycleways that pedestrians are
prohibited from using may be the norm (I have a feeling that is the case
in The Netherlands, for example). This is one of the reasons why I think
that the default render ought to be location-aware, in order to reflect
different highway laws in different places.
But, also, it's a good reason to press on with creating a specifically
UK stylesheet, so that OSM on a .uk domain looks different to that on a
.org domain, with the former being styled to match British practice.
More information about the Talk-GB