v50.0-beta1 Pre-release feedback

[joshinils]

For separate exclusive cycleways in germany which are not designated via sign i would like another colour than black. those are cycleways, ie. highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes + traffic_sign=none.

for those situations i can not distinguish wether the street is correctly tagged as having a separate bicycle path or if that is an exclusive sidewalk for pedestrians only, or if there is a separate bicycle path but also a separate cycleway tagged on the road-way (i.e. duplicate tagging of the same cycleway).

there is no way to tag a way as allowed but not designated (which happens a lot in germany especially i feel).

the sign-combination DE:239 + DE:1022-10 means the path is designated for pedestrians highway=footway + footway=sidewalk (+ foot=designated) , but cycling is allowed bicycle=yes but only while taking care of pedestrians (have the right of way) and only going at walking pace max_speed:bicycle=walk.
those footpaths are also black, which seems right, but also means no distinction between other non-cycling paths.

[joshinils]

where there is a oneway=yes tag but no oneway-sign, so for streets with a median it makes no sense to ask for the left side (it would probably be tagged on the opposide side of the dual carriageway). but OSM knows no distinction between "real" oneway roads with traffic_sign=DE:220 (where you may park on the left hand side in germany) and "fake" oneway roads only tagged as such for routing and logical reasons.

the only way around this i see is to use the tag dual_carriageway=yes if it exists. but it probably is best to explicitly tag all those as not having a cycleway on the left hand side. same situation with the parking overlay.

[joshinils]

btw. here are changesets made with StreetComplete:quest_type=CyclewayOverlay
https://osmcha.org/?filters=%7B%22metadata%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22StreetComplete%3Aquest_type%3DCyclewayOverlay%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22StreetComplete%3Aquest_type%3DCyclewayOverlay%22%7D%5D%7D

[westnordost]

For separate exclusive cycleways in germany which are not designated via sign i would like another colour than black. those are cycleways, ie. highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes + traffic_sign=none.

traffic_sign=none doesn't seem to be that well established. It's not even documented at all. Also, filtering by traffic_sign=none wouldn't work per se, because there may always be other (unrelated) traffic signs.
Anyway, that an unsigned cycleway is not classified as "something like a footway" is fine, will change that.

there is no way to tag a way as allowed but not designated (which happens a lot in germany especially i feel).
the sign-combination DE:239 + DE:1022-10 means the path is designated for pedestrians highway=footway + footway=sidewalk (+ foot=designated) , but cycling is allowed bicycle=yes but only while taking care of pedestrians (have the right of way) and only going at walking pace max_speed:bicycle=walk.
those footpaths are also black, which seems right, but also means no distinction between other non-cycling paths.

Yes, no distinction is made between footway with bicycles allowed and footway with no bicycles allowed.
See #4669 for reaons.

[westnordost]

Anyway, that an unsigned cycleway is not classified as "something like a footway" is fine, will change that.

By the way, as highway=footway per wiki documentation implies foot=designated, foot=designated cannot be interpreted as that "there is always a sign". This is true especially outside of Germany's / Europe's "sign jungle" but even in Germany, you will find plenty of ways that were clearly purpose-built for pedestrians and are not signed explicitly with the blue lollipop. For example, just about any footway that branches off from a sidewalk towards apartment complexes. Still, these ways are de-facto very often tagged as highway=footway and not something like highway=path. Simply because they have been intended (i.e. purpose-built) for pedestrians, which is the other interpretation of designated.

Conversely, the same is true for cycleways.

In conclusion, one can say that

1. the wiki contradicts itself in a few places
2. what exactly designated means is subject to different interpretations, in particular
   1. , some say "it must be signed" (because this is what the word means). This interpretation doesn't really work outside of the German/European "sign jungle", subsequently, most footways even in the US would need to be tagged always as highway=path in the absence of such designation. However, this is not the case. Additionally, presets in iD and JOSM call e.g. a highway=footway just a "footway", not a "designated footway"
   2. some say it means that "it was made with that mode of transport as primary user in mind", i.e. pedestrians on footways, cyclists on cycleways etc..

[matkoniecz]

I would say that foot=designated is much weaker and requiring less signage than bicycle=designated (at least in Poland)

[westnordost]

Hmm, yeah, I spent the last 20 minutes reading through the wiki again and I wonder if highway=footway should just be imply foot=yes / used interchangeably with foot=designated instead.

[westnordost]

On the other hand,

highway=path
foot=designated
bicycle=yes

or

highway=footway
bicycle=yes

is documented to be different from

highway=path
bicycle=yes

Latter is "just a path", former is a footway on which cyclists are (merely) allowed.

[westnordost]

Okay, I reviewed everything again and came to this, finally. This however means, sorry @joshinils , that highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes is parsed as "not designated for cyclists", which actually really is what it is, otherwise it would be bicycle=designated.

[matkoniecz]

I wish there were an option for distinguishing obligatory and optional cycleways.

Note that if there is not one you can invent it. Also, as I understand, in some areas they tag traffic sign codes on cycleways to record such distinction.

[joshinils]

I wish there were an option for distinguishing obligatory and optional cycleways.

Note that if there is not one you can invent it.

So far, I am not comfortable starting a Proposal process and discussions.

Also, as I understand, in some areas they tag traffic sign codes on cycleways to record such distinction.

yeah, we like to do that, eg. DE:239,1022-10 or DE:237 but that means one has to tag them, and know how to do it correctly and also connect all the separately mapped cycleways at intersections and tag the centerline with bicycle=<use_sidepath|optional_sidepath> as applicable and maybe cycleway:right=<separate|share_sidewalk>`.
know how to distinguish an optional cycleway from a parking strip on the edge of a kerb, etc.. This sometimes needs more than someone going: "here is this blue sign, let's tag that", especially the optional ones... (which is why i am opposed to them in most cases, since they usually do not meet width, space, buffer to car parking, surface or smoothness requirements)

[westnordost]

Hm, the issue with bicycle=use_sidepath is, what about if it differs per side? Ah actually, nvm, there isbicycle:forward=use_sidepath etc.

cycleway=share_sidewalk is marked as invalid by SC by the way because it is ambiguous (gemeinsamer fuß und radweg oder radfahrer frei?)

[joshinils]

cycleway=share_sidewalk is marked as invalid by SC by the way because it is ambiguous (gemeinsamer fuß und radweg oder radfahrer frei?)

good point, I will relay that to the berlin matrix group

[westnordost]

The "proper" tagging to differentiate the two if it is tagged on the centerline is:

Gemeinsamer Fuß- und Radweg:

cycleway:*=track
cycleway:*:segregated=no

Fußweg, Fahrradfahrer frei

cycleway:*=no
sidewalk:*:bicycle=yes

[joshinils]

bad example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/479700952
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.4481492&lng=13.4387164&z=17&pKey=167627685366360&focus=photo
https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/479700952
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129953845
https://osmcha.org/changesets/129953845/ (osmcha doesn't load for me...)

the footway was previously tagged with
highway=footway
foot=designated
bicycle=yes
segregated=no (but since 2017, this was probably in error)
oneway:bicycle=yes

and the changeset made changes to
bicycle=yes -> bicycle=designated (there is no sign, this is wrong, it is only optional)
segregated=no -> segregated=yes (this seems ok according to mapillary imagery)

which is wrong, because the cycleway portion is not obligatory, and the centerline way should not be tagged with bicycle=use_sidepath but rather bicycle=optional_sidepath. It currently is neither.

according to the image of the table on when to display what SC should have shown this piece as:
previously: not designated for cyclists
now: shared-use path / separated bike and foot path
(my version shows "Not designated for cyclists (regardless of whether cycling is allowed or not)" for a similarly tagged share-use way, i guess this is the same just without the add-on in the parentheses)

I fear this has led to confusion and or misinterpretation and thus mistagging.
The problem I see here is that the shared use path was previously black, and now blue, thus satisfying the user as having corrected a footway into a shared path which allows cycling.

[westnordost]

bicycle=yes -> bicycle=designated (there is no sign, this is wrong, it is only optional)

No, designated says nothing about whether people have to use it. That is what bicycle=use_sidepathis for. Even in the "it has to be explicitly designated" kind of interpretation of designated, it is clear through the red paving that it has been designated for cyclists.

And as physical cycleway infrastructure is concerned, this looks to be a (good) separated cycle track. I am not sure why the municipality would not mandate that this cycleway must be used by cyclists. Maybe has to do with the 30 km/h maxspeed, as at least in 30 km/h zones, no cycle track may be signed as mandatory (this is by law in Germany) and there is simply no sign that says "hello, here is a cycle track" without also mandating its use. Maybe a white bicycle pictogram on the lane (as that has no legal relevance), but this is not common in Germany.

[joshinils]

Exactly that is the point of contention for Germany!
We tag bicycle=designated only when there is a round, blue sign with a white bicycle icon on it.
I know the wiki says otherwise.

[westnordost]

If you mean with "we" German mappers, I am not so sure about this claim. As you say yourself, the wiki says otherwise and/or is contradictory in a few detailed points such as possibly this one. As there has been no software support to define these different categories so far, it was really up to the individual mapper how exactly certain situations are tagged. For example iD and JOSM have presets for "segregated foot- and cycleway" but they (of course) do not explain what makes a path a "segregated foot- and cycleway", i.e. is a sign required or not?, that's up to the individual mapper. And StreetComplete does the same here, it does not explain whether it must be designated/signed as one or not and this is deliberate, see the posts above. I suspect the actual tagging found in the wild is much more mixed than one would think.

Shoehorning designated and yes to project the German (unique?) situation of non-mandatory cycle tracks is not particularly meaningful though, as we can't have the same tags meaning something different in different countries. No software will be able to handle this accurately.

And arguably, it does not even work. Because, if you tag a segregated foot- and cycleway that is not mandatory for cyclists because a sign happens to be missing (for one reason or another) as

foot=designated
bicycle=yes

then this results in the same access tagging as for footways with cyclists allowed ("Fußweg, Fahrradfahrer frei") although it is a very different situation.

Edit: Well, if segregated is tagged in that case, it would be possible to distinguish.

If one wants to accurately describe the signed legal situation on the separately mapped cycleway itself, I do not think one can get around mapping the actual traffic_signs that apply, or come up with another tag that describes this concept independent of the specific sign. However, on the latter, the opinion seems to be that whether or not a cycle track is mandatory or not is rather a property of the road than on the cycle track and hence bicycle=use_sidepath is already fine for that (which makes sense, if you think about it, IMO)

Die Benutzungspflicht lässt sich nur indirekt über das bicycle=use_sidepath an der Straße umsetzen.

Ja, weil nur das logisch einen Sinn macht. Ich kann ja niemanden zwingen einen Radweg zu nutzen der lieber zu Hause bleiben möchte. 😋

(source)