New quest: Oneway on separate cycleways

[Discostu36]

General

Affected tag(s) to be modified/added: oneway

Question asked:

• Is it allowed to drive on this cycleway in both directions?
• Is it allowed to drive on this path in both directions?

Answer options:

• Yes
  oneway=no is tagged
• No
  Direction is asked. oneway=yes or oneway=-1 is tagged

Checklist

Checklist for quest suggestions (see guidelines):

• 🚧 To be added tag is established and has a useful purpose
• 🤔 Any answer the user can give must have an equivalent tagging (Quest should not reappear to other users when solved by one)
• 🐿️ Easily answerable by any pedestrian from the outside but a survey is necessary (see below)
• 💤 Not an overwhelming percentage of quests have the same answer (No spam)
• 🕓 Applies to a reasonable number of map data (Worth the effort)

Ideas for implementation

Element selection:

• highway=cycleway or
• highway=path with bicycle=designated or
• highway=footway with bicycle=designated and
• no oneway tag

I don't think this should be asked for ways with bicycle=yes because of the "no spam" rule. There might be many ways, especially in rural areas, where bicycles are allowed without any signage, so that oneway would be no most of the time.

If it is not ok to have a quest that might sometimes be only anwerable by cyclists, selection has also to include:

• foot=yes/designated in case of highway=cycleway
• foot!=no in case of highway=path or
• way allowed for pedestrians near the cycleway

Further selection refinements
These have come up in discussion here and with the OSM community

• Ways tagged with oneway:bicycle should possibly be excluded because there might be different oneway rules for different vehicles here
• Ways tagged with is_sidepath=no should possibly be excluded because oneway rules usually only apply to cycleways next to a road
• It might be a good idea to geometrically only select ways that are near a highway=primary/secondary/...

Metadata needed:
This is written from a German perspective, where cycleways next to a street are oneway if not explicitely signed otherwise. If there are countries where this is not the case (answers would always be no or always yes), a list would need to be created to exclude them.

Proposed UI:

• I don't know if the oneway quest could be a blueprint, I don't have it in front of me

[Discostu36]

Rationale
In my hometown, oneway tags on cycleways are missing quite often, leading to bicycle routers giving illegal instructions.

[joshinils]

I think it would be better to tag oneway:bicycle, since many paths are shared use, and then the oneway property is only applicable to cycling.

and/or ask for any way where cycling is legal wether cycling is legal in both directions and tag according to what kind of highway it is.

should also cover non-oneway contrtaflow for bicycles

[joshinils]

should a hw=residential with oneway=yes get the additional tag oneway:bicycle=yes too? or is that since it is implied unnecessary and superfluous?

i think this info is better to have than not know if cycling in both directions is legal and relying on the default behaviour

[Discostu36]

oneway is much more established on highway=path and highway=cycleway than oneway:bicycle and I don't know cases where a path is only oneway for specific vehicle types.

oneway:bicycle on highway=residential with oneway=yes is already tagged in cycleway quest.

[Discostu36]

I have edited my initial idea to have different wordings for cycleways and paths, and to use the verb “drive” to make it more obvious that this is not about travelling by foot.

[matkoniecz]

Definitely does not makes sense in Poland.

[mnalis]

@Discostu36 you mean bicycle=designated, not cycleway=designated, right? Also, I think verb to cycle would be clearer then to drive.

[mnalis]

Definitely does not makes sense in Poland.

@matkoniecz what exactly does not make sense? Whole quest idea (e.g. all cycling infrastructure in Poland is always oneway? Or never oneway?). Or you only dislike that wording change?

Quest itself makes sense in Croatia - taginfo here says about 56% of bicycle=designated have oneway tagged: about 4 times more yes than no, which coincides with my estimate - most of cycleways here (both standalone cycleways, and more popular ones with segregated pedestrians) are oneway here, but about quarter do have dual tracks drawn for bicycles (one for each direction). It would be nice to clarify remaining 44% undefined ones.

(of course, in Croatia there is always the problematic issue of traffic culture: often some cyclists will drive in illegal direction, or pedestrians will walk on designated cycleways, or cyclist will drive on areas designated for pedestrians, or cars will illegally park on both of those etc. -- but such misbehaviors are not related to what is legal situation on the ground - i.e. what should mapped in OSM)

[Discostu36]

@Discostu36 you mean bicycle=designated, not cycleway=designated, right?

Yes, thank you, I've corrected that.

Also, I think verb to cycle would be clearer then to drive.

I chose that word on purpose because (again written from a German perspective) cycleways are often also allowed for other single-tracked vehicles (e.g. moped, small electric vehicle) that have to follow the same one-way rule.

[mnalis]

@matkoniecz what exactly does not make sense? Whole quest idea (e.g. all cycling infrastructure in Poland is always oneway? Or never oneway?)

BTW, here is quick overpass to colorize cycleways which are/aren't oneway: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1rAw

I chose that word on purpose because (again written from a German perspective) cycleways are often also allowed for other single-tracked vehicles (e.g. moped, small electric vehicle) that have to follow the same one-way rule.

Ah, OK then.

[matkoniecz]

@matkoniecz what exactly does not make sense? Whole quest idea (e.g. all cycling infrastructure in Poland is always oneway? Or never oneway?). Or you only dislike that wording change?

vanishingly small part of cycleways is oneway, and these ones are typically already tagged with oneway

BTW, here is quick overpass to colorize cycleways which are/aren't oneway: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1rAw

and one that takes into account that oneway tagging on all cycleways in Poland makes as much sense as tagging oneway on every single road: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1rB9 (blue is no oneway tag at all and I disabled POIsation of small features in settings, red is still explicit oneway=no, green for oneway cycleways)

Situation is the same in Kraków (though maybe some city/town went into direction of spamming oneway cycleways? But they would need to bother with signing that, cycleways are two-way by default)

[westnordost]

Are these cycleways that go alongside a road (like sidewalks) but have been mapped separately?

Such cycleways, are they two-way by default in Poland? I.e. if this was in Poland , would no police officer be able to give oncoming cyclists a fine? (Speaking of de-jure here, not de-facto)

[matkoniecz]

Are these cycleways that go alongside a road (like sidewalks) but have been mapped separately?

Very large part of them.

Such cycleways, are they two-way by default in Poland?

Yes.

For example cycling from https://www.google.de/maps/@53.5596781,9.9821645,3a,75y,51.97h,76.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shhXO0EBhR3QI50CMwBe58g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?ucbcb=1 someone would be able to turn both left and right

The same on https://www.google.com/maps/@50.0829338,19.9716556,3a,90y,236.97h,87.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_HldYnj6sz-CTZq2g_EmjQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Or https://www.google.com/maps/@50.0870515,19.9518892,3a,75y,208.65h,88.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXD8i0-vPo7zRsd-nIkDZmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en (vertical traffic signs marking cycleway are a bit far away, especially left one, but horizontal are clear)

Or https://www.google.com/maps/@50.0896778,19.9132975,3a,75y,191h,94.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-yE7_lW-wo6XBYrlpqaiAQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (though here with extremely pedantic interpretation of turn right sign you can argue otherwise, but even the most obnoxious police told to "fine X cyclists today" has not ever tried this one)

You need dedicated no entry sign to get oneway cycleway, here is case of tiny one-way connector: https://www.google.com/maps/@50.0744569,19.9088514,3a,75y,254.39h,90.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skAR2L-TN_B_rR6ASGpkl2w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

[westnordost]

@matkoniecz Hmm interesting. What about protected cycle lanes? I.e. they are pretty much on the road surface but there is a small kerb-like barrier in-between?

So in Germany, all cycleways that go alongside a street (like sidewalks) are oneway unless posted otherwise. oneway=yes (or -1) is kind of the default assumption if the tag is missing. However, in this case it is of course difficult for data consumers to ascertain automatically which direction the oneway should be. So it could be argued that it is kind of an error if it is not set.

Anyway, I lean towards accepting this quest but only for countries in which this rule exists. I.e. not in Poland. However, the oneway-ness of cycleways is also kind of difficult to survey on foot because like for maxspeeds, one may have to walk towards the next intersection to see if there are signs as it is not obvious from the physical properties of the cycleway. This in turn could lead to some wrong data being added by StreetComplete surveyors as they may not be used to do so much work to solve a single quest. One reason why the maxspeed quest is disabled by default. ... maybe make this quest then disabled by default too.

@Discostu36 or others that are interested in this quest: What is needed for this quest suggestion to be approved is to:

1. Ask in the [German, etc.] community whether oneway=* is seen to be somewhat of a required tag for highway=cycleway (+ highway=path or footway with bicycle=designated) and thus it is okay and not spammy to add it to every single cycleway, even if it is yes or -1 in > 90% of the cases. Or alternatively/additionally, analyze the current data with overpass/taginfo - what is the de-facto tagging practice with oneway on highway=cycleway (in the different countries)?

2. (opt:) Research in which other countries the oneway-rule for cycleways exist. I.e. in Poland obviously not. In France? In the UK? Etc... - only for these countries, the quest should be enabled.

[matkoniecz]

What about protected cycle lanes? I.e. they are pretty much on the road surface but there is a small kerb-like barrier in-between?

Depends on whether they are signed as lane or separate cycleway. Here are cases with flexible bollards, but kerb-like separation would be equivalent.

two way cycleway (note white bicycle on blue circle - that is a cycleway sign)
https://www.google.pl/maps/@50.0587618,19.9504563,3a,74.2y,234.21h,79.7t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgU2hiNJ5Qk4RTRQQTnX0ew!2e0!5s20210301T000000!7i16384!8i8192

oneway lane (note also painted oneway arrow as reminder/clarification), arguably mappable in OSM as a separate way due to physical separation...
https://www.google.pl/maps/@50.0584493,19.9455939,3a,48.3y,294.27h,84.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7vRuf0q6QxcGNNirUG4Gjg!2e0!5s20210301T000000!7i16384!8i8192

[Discostu36]

Let's start with the easiest one for me:

Germany

Legislation

Cyclist are only allowed to use the cycleway on the right side of the street unless a sign explicitly allows driving on the left (StVO §2 Abs. 4)

Statistics

highway=cycleway

tag	percent
oneway	22.1%
oneway=yes	15.6%
oneway=no	6.4%
oneway=-1	0.0%

highway=path; bicycle=designated

tag	percent
oneway	15.6%
oneway=yes	8.3%
oneway=no	7.3%
oneway=-1	0.0%

highway=footway; bicycle=designated

tag	percent
oneway	6.9%
oneway=yes	3.7%
oneway=no	3.2%
oneway=-1	0.0%

Community Feedback

StreetComplete: Oneway auf Radwegen | OpenStreetMap Community

[joshinils]

Re: Germany;
Should this quest remove a possibly existing oneway:bicycle=* in favor of a plain oneway=* ?

Since there is no point in tagging it on the ways this quest will cover.

[Discostu36]

Re: Germany;\nShould this quest remove a possibly existing oneway:bicycle=* in favor of a plain oneway=* ?

Good question. To keep this quest simple and to avoid removing more detailed tagging (maybe there are rare cases of signed different oneway rules for different vehicles), maybe the better idea would be to exclude ways that are tagged with oneway:bicycle from the selection query?

[Discostu36]

Ask in the [German, etc.] community whether oneway=* is seen to be somewhat of a required tag for highway=cycleway (+ highway=path or footway with bicycle=designated) and thus it is okay and not spammy to add it to every single cycleway, even if it is yes or -1 in > 90% of the cases. Or alternatively/additionally, analyze the current data with overpass/taginfo - what is the de-facto tagging practice with oneway on highway=cycleway (in the different countries)?

What is your threshold for getting community feedback? How high does the percentage have to be to make it optional?

[joshinils]

maybe the better idea would be to exclude ways that are tagged with oneway:bicycle from the selection query?

I think most of them are tagged in error with oneway:bicycle. I did that too, not realizing foot traffic is excluded from oneway rules for routing, since oneway is only defined to be used for vehicles.

Hence, I think it be best if they are re-checked by people on the ground.

And I think there are enough highway=path|footway|cycleway with oneway:bicycle=*, at least in Berlin:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1rWT

[matkoniecz]

What is your threshold for getting community feedback? How high does the percentage have to be to make it optional?

I would say that 22% is not high enough. And note that source also matters - if someone just run undiscussed automated edit adding/removing oneway or oneway:bicycle tags situation is different.

[Discostu36]

@joshinils

Yes, but I think that SC is better suited for adding new data than for correcting old data because of lack of context (other tags, changeset discussions etc. are not visible) and therefore danger of reducing data quality.

[joshinils]

danger of reducing data quality.

Alright, I think I can set up a maproulette task with all of those and check them in berlin

edit: here: https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/38276

[westnordost]

What is your threshold for getting community feedback?

Actually, I meant the forum.

It's good that you have had a look at the data, but it doesn't speak a clear picture. 22% is IMO not really enough to assume that oneway should be tagged on every cycleway as a matter of course because everybody does that.
Now, we do not need this assertion to continue with this quest, just the general acceptance of that it can't hurt to tag them all explicitly with oneway / that it would be useful / that it would not be spam.

[Discostu36]

I have created a thread on the forums:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/streetcomplete-oneway-auf-radwegen/9452

I also updated the comment above.

Do you think it is useful to create a comment here for every country or should I collect these information somewhere else (Wiki)?

[westnordost]

You could create a table.

Also, how to ask the question is going to be difficult, as the oneway-ness is not signed for cycleways of roads. On the other hand if there is no sign on paths not adjacent to roads, the default would be oneway=no.
I wonder if there is a tag to denote a cycleway as adjacent to a street?

Also, in the forum post, did you make clear that it is about separately mapped cycleways only?

[matkoniecz]

I wonder if there is a tag to denote a cycleway as adjacent to a street?

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org//search?q=cycleway%3Dsidewalk - around 5k cycleway=sidewalk

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1s0p - around 12k bicycle=designated highway=path footway=sidewalk

[Discostu36]

You could create a table.

Ok, I'll give it a try.

Also, how to ask the question is going to be difficult, as the oneway-ness is not signed for cycleways of roads.

Well, does it have to be? Or asked differently: Do we assume that people using StreetComplete know the traffic laws of their country, or we assume that they don't?

For designated cycle ways in Germany (blue sign) it is also kind of signed, as the sign is only standing on one side of the way.

One way to solve this could be to have an "are you sure" popup when a cycle way in Germany is near a highway=primary/secondary/etc. and the user is choosing "both way": "Usually, cycle ways in Germany that belong to a road are only to be used in one direction. Are you sure that it is allowed to use this one in both directions?"

On the other hand if there is no sign on paths not adjacent to roads, the default would be oneway=no. I wonder if there is a tag to denote a cycleway as adjacent to a street?

There is a proposal for a is_sidepath tag. But it is not broadly used.

Also, in the forum post, did you make clear that it is about separately mapped cycleways only?

Yes, I did.

[mnalis]

The quest would be useful for Croatia(HR): we have 55.90% mapped oneway=* on bicycle=designated paths, with about 4:1 ratio in favor of oneway=yes (which matches my experience on the ground). Remaining 44.1% would benefit from being also clearly marked.

[osmuser63783]

Is it allowed to drive on this path in both directions?

I chose that word on purpose because (again written from a German perspective) cycleways are often also allowed for other single-tracked vehicles (e.g. moped, small electric vehicle) that have to follow the same one-way rule.

In English you "ride" a bike or a scooter and you "drive" a car or a van. If a quest asks me if I can drive on a cycleway and I say yes I would expect it to tag motor_vehicle=yes!

Also, there is still some opposition to the idea that oneway on a footway only applies to vehicles, see this community forum discussion (just so you're aware of this discussion).

[Discostu36]

In English you "ride" a bike or a scooter and you "drive" a car or a van.

Thank you, I forgot about that difference in English, do you have a suggestion how the question could be phrased better?

[1ec5]

The wording is also awkward because of the passive voice with “it”. It would be less awkward as, “Is …ing on this path in both directions allowed?” or better yet, “Can/May you…?”

• “Can you use this path in either direction?”
• “Can you travel along this path in either direction?”
• “Can you go down this path in either direction?”

[joshinils]

"may"/"can" may lead to another problem with german legalities specifically.

a cycleway may be optional and without signage, maybe pictograms on the floor, maybe red bicks etc. and thus be made for cycling but not compulsory to use, so you may use it, but do not have to.
and a cycleway may have a special blue sign with a white bicycle on it (DE:237 ) (not to be confused with the same imagery painted onto the ground, legally these are different) where a cyclist is obligated to use the cycleway and may not use the raodway.

there may be a compulsory cycleway which is two-way by sign. (DE:237 + DE:1000-30 + )

and then there exist exceptions like additional signage (a single DE:1022-10 on the left) allowing cycling in the opposite direction on optional/compulsory paths on the left hand side (i.e. in the opposite direction).

the distinction could be made that one has to be used in one or both directions and one can or may be used in both directions. and or one is compulsory and one contra-flow direction is optional.

though so far there exists no distinction between these two states in the osm-tagging, both compulsory and optional cycleways get tagged with bicycle=designated, and thus routing via optional cycleways may be of poorer wuality because of it. this is a problem for which i don't know of a solution.

[1ec5]

In case you’re still collecting information on various countries, one-ways are the exception rather than the norm for bike paths in the U.S. But it’s probably more useful to speak about different kinds of bike paths:

• A dedicated bike path (away from the street) is usually if not always two-way.
• A sidepath is usually two-way, even when there’s one on either side of the street.
• A separated bike lane is usually one-way, and there will be signage and road markings to that effect.
• A protected bike lane is usually one-way, with road markings to that effect. However, some cities like Washington, D.C., build a lot of two-way “cycle tracks”.
• An unprotected bike lane is always one-way. Washington, D.C., is the only city I know of that has built bike lanes running down the middle of a street, but those are marked as one lane per direction.

[mnalis]

"may"/"can" may lead to another problem with german legalities specifically.
a cycleway may be optional and without signage, maybe pictograms on the floor, maybe red bicks etc. and thus be made for cycling but not compulsory to use, so you may use it, but do not have to.

I would think if that is compulsory, then the word "must" should be used instead of "may" (or "can").

In fact, I'd recommend never to use word "can", as it often could be used to mean physical possibility ("can I ride bicycle over that path? Sure I can, watch me do it! But may I ride it there? No, you may not, as it is forbidden by law, and you'd get fined and/or apprehended")

Regardless of that wording issue, the forum discussion raises interesting question: should we tag oneway:bicycle=* or oneway=* ?

• oneway:bicycle=* is order of magnitude less used for Croatia example for paths having bicycle=designated, but it is unambiguous and much easier to handle (i.e. no special rules/checks needed for other tags)
• on the other hand oneway=* is more used and like more supported by data consumers ^{[citation needed]}, but can be ambiguous and thus harder to check (i.e. it is not a problem if access rules resolve to access=no + bicycle=designated; but if it allows anything more than just bicycles, it can be problematic and understood differently -- e.g. you'd have to skip ways tagged with horse=* (when != no), mofa=*, kick_scooter=* and dozens of other keys; see the discourse thread above for detailed discussion)

In any case, no matter which tag we decide to add in the end, existence of both tags probably should be checked in the quest.

[joshinils]

Some cycleways may be used by mopeds and pedestrians alike, I suggest using the plain oneway

[joshinils]

In any case, no matter which tag we decide to add in the end, existence of both tags probably should be checked in the quest.

If there is a oneway:bicycle and a plain oneway gets added, the oneway:bicycle could or should (?) get removed.

[mnalis]

Some cycleways may be used by mopeds and pedestrians alike, I suggest using the plain oneway

That seems to be country dependent. In Croatia, on regular (B40 / B42 / B43 signed) highway=cycleway, mofas are not allowed (much less mopeds!)

Pedelecs on the other hand are currently (for traffic rules purposes) considered bicycles (but that has changed few times in last dozen years), so anything with explicit (bicycle=designated/yes) or implicit (highway=cycleway) bicycles is OK for them.

Some other countries might have different rules. If we try to cover all of them too, it could quickly turn to be too complex to implement and maintain. 🤷

If there is a oneway:bicycle and a plain oneway gets added, the oneway:bicycle could or should (?) get removed.

That sound like data damage potential (or at least data conflict in "better" case) right there.
I'd probably sleep easiest if:

• only countries where situation is investigated and completely unambiguous are included in the quest
• ways which already have either oneway or oneway:bicycle were skipped
• the quest was phrased to only ask for allowed direction of bicycle movement
• the oneway:bicycle=* was added depending on the answer given.

[joshinils]

That seems to be country dependent. In Croatia, on regular (B40 / B42 / B43 signed) highway=cycleway, mofas are not allowed (much less mopeds!)

Right, I misused the word moped, I meant mofa, sry.

Pedelecs on the other hand are currently (for traffic rules purposes) considered bicycles (but that has changed few times in last dozen years), so anything with explicit (bicycle=designated/yes) or implicit (highway=cycleway) bicycles is OK for them.

There are Pedelecs (or E-Bikes) in Germany, limited to 25km/h by themselves, electrically assisted only while actively pedaling (meant to be an assistance to muscle, not a replacement), muscle-power may get you as fast as you like, those are considered bicycles by law.
And there are S-Pedelecs which need an insurance license plate and those may go 45 km/h by themselves, no pedaling needed at all, those may not use cycleways, even compulsory ones.

[mnalis]

Alternatively, it might also be OK (i.e. not result in incorrect or ambiguous tagging) if:

• only countries where situation is investigated and completely unambiguous are included in the quest
• ways which already have either oneway or oneway:bicycle were skipped
• the quest was phrased to ask about restrictions on directional movement of all vehicles that are allowed to be used on that way, and explicitly indicated that it does not cover directional restrictions of pedestrians, horses, skis, inline skates and other non-vehicle transport methods, but might include kick scooters, hand carts and other things that may be considered vehicles, if they are allowed on such way.
• the oneway=* was added depending on the answer given.

However, that seems significantly more complex to explain and taxing on the SC user, thus possibly breaking " 🐿️ Easy answer: Users are out and about and impatient. A quick, straightforward and clear answer must be possible" SC tenet.
Thus I think my previous suggestion would be better idea. But perhaps others who have read through that forum discussion too can chip in with their opinions?

[RubenKelevra]

I agree with @westnordost here, this question should be disabled by default. On one side it's a bit difficult to walk a long distance, but also to avoid that people tag those paths wrongly, "because there's no sign visible" or something like this.

But it's really desperately needed, at least in my area. There are zero tags and the routers are completely unusable because of that.

At least for Germany there are two ways I know are used to sign a cycle way for both direction: The old way is to put just a bicycle sign back to back on the sign post, so it's visible for both directions of travel.

The new way is to put the sign up and an additional sign below with a bicycle with two arrow (forwards and backwards) below.

Some cycle ways are not marked with the blue sign at all (because this means usage is mandatory), but got markings on the ground, which indicate two directions, but they are somewhat rare.

[joshinils]

At least for Germany there are two ways I know are used to sign a cycle way for both direction: The old way is to put just a bicycle sign back to back on the sign post, so it's visible for both directions of travel.

The new way is to put the sign up and an additional sign below with a bicycle with two arrow (forwards and backwards) below.

Some cycle ways are not marked with the blue sign at all (because this means usage is mandatory), but got markings on the ground, which indicate two directions, but they are somewhat rare.

There's also the single lone traffic_sign=DE:1022-10 on the left to mark it as a cycleway which is optional to use, and two-way.
The problem that two-way cycleways are not signed as such for the "correct" travel direction is a (bad) thing, and means you don't expect oncoming traffic, or think they are wrong-way drivers.

§ 2 Straßenbenutzung durch Fahrzeuge
(4) [...] Linke Radwege ohne die Zeichen 237, 240 oder 241 dürfen nur benutzt werden, wenn dies durch das allein stehende Zusatzzeichen „Radverkehr frei“ angezeigt ist. [...]

which also means there'd need to be the tags bicycle:forward=optional_sidepath and bicycle:backward=use_sidepath and cycleway:left=separate, cycleway:right=no on the centerline,
and on the sidepath bicycle:backward=yes and bicycle=designated or bicycle=forward=designated and traffic_sign:forward=DE:241, traffic_sign:backward=DE:1022-10.

On one side it's a bit difficult to walk a long distance, but also to avoid that people tag those paths wrongly, "because there's no sign visible" or something like this.

This is a general problem with inconsistent signage. It's the fault of who is responsible to put up the correct signs. How should one even tag something as oneway if from another point the same way is two-way? split it at the middle and tag both parts different? makes no sense for routing then.
The only viable alternative I see is to complain that the signage is inconsistent and have it fixed.
Other than that there would need to be a tag indicating inconsistent signage, which I don't know if it exists.

[RubenKelevra]

@joshinils ah true, forgot that one.

This is a general problem with inconsistent signage. It's the fault of who is responsible to put up the correct signs.

Well, I think it's more of an issue of new regulations and old stuff just left hanging.

But we're not really discussing how to tag all the details like signage here, just if it's allowed to drive in the opposite direction, and there's oneway the best tag, as its already established.

I don't see a reason to tag the centerline with additional tags, I mean the router needs to be clever enough to find the side paths anyway, so it can check the oneway tag there. There's no need to add redundancies to the database for that.

[RubenKelevra]

@westnordost I think the "is this quest useful for Germany" has been answered in the forum in the meantime:

The question if this quest should be added other countries is hard to definitely answer for me. But I cycled in Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark, which all seem to have the same "default is one way" rules.

I did some research on the rules.

This rule seems to apply to the US as well. Sources: National Association of City Transportation Officials, (Bike Alliance for Minnesota)

For Poland there seems to be a difference between one and two way cycle lanes as well, but it's not as strict. Meaning you're allowed to cycle against the flow one a one way, it's just not mandatory to use it, if I understand this source correctly.

[RubenKelevra]

@westnordost having an easy way to capture this information would massively improve the bicycle routing in my area, as around 80% of cycle ways are oneway, as they are along a road and only a fraction has been mapped as oneway.

But as this requires a survey this needs to be done mobile and it's kinda hard to do with Vespucci, given that you need to find those cycleways first. A quest in SC would be highly beneficial.

Can you give this another look please?

[westnordost]

It's a long thread, I read through it all and the linked forum thread. The ticket is already marked as "new quest" which means that anyone interested and able is invited to implement this. When I have extra time, I often look at the number of positive emoji-reactions on the suggestion to decide what I am going to implement. For now, my contribution shall be to summarize how this quest should be implemented:

---

First off, ideally, the proposal for is_sidepath should go through and be approved first, at least in its original/pure form is_sidepath=yes/no. (ping @tordans)

Because this would solve the issue that SC users could add wrong information if they are not educated about the legal situation of bike paths along roads vs dedicated bike paths. (No signs on bike paths along roads = it is a oneway; No signs on dedicated bike paths not along roads = it is not a oneway.)
When is_sidepath=yes/no is approved, there can be two quests: First, we ask whether the bike path is straßenbegleitend. Then, only if the question was answered with a "yes", the second quest asks for in which direction the bike paths goes.
This is much clearer and does not offload legalthink to the users but just asks for on-site facts, as SC is supposed to.

---

Anyway. The quest should be:

• Disabled by default for similar reason as the max speed quest (sign might be far away).

• It should not be asked for bike paths that are explicitly not sidepaths to roads (is_sidepath ≠ no or similar tags),
  or, if there is a quest about is_sidepath=yes/no, only asked for bike paths that are sidepaths to roads (is_sidepath = yes or similar tags)

• Wording something like: In which direction must cyclists use this path?. A clarification that is always displayed (i.e. not implemented as a hint) in the form must clarify that bike paths alongside a road are generally oneways unless otherwise signed and dedicated bike paths not alongside roads are generally not unless signed otherwise. This clarification is not necessary when there'd be a quest about is_sidepath=yes/no and thus would remove a lot of potential of confusing users and getting confused answers.

• Should only be enabled for Germany for now, other countries can be added later

• UI is similar to the oneway quest

• oneway=* is tagged (not oneway:bicycle) because it is much more common, but the latter should be handled

[RubenKelevra]

Thanks for the long answer!

Why should we wait for the is_sidepath=* tag when there's already a well-established method with over 5 million uses, compared to just 28 k for is_sidepath=*?

In my opinion, using highway=footway and footway=sidewalk works perfectly. I can't think of any cycleway alongside a road where walking isn't allowed, so this approach covers 100% of cases — at least in my experience.

What’s the advantage of introducing a new tag for this?

[westnordost]

footway=sidewalk does not work (for our purpose) because 1. It is for footways. But we want to capture whether the cycleway is straßenbegleitend. cycleway=sidewalk is not used or deprecated, as far as I know. 2. there is no footway=not_sidewalk (is_sidepath=no). But we would need that to be able to tag it correctly when the user answers that it is not a sidepath to a road Am 9. September 2024 14:16:03 MESZ schrieb ***@***.***" ***@***.***>:

…

Thanks for the long answer! Why should we wait for the is_sidepath=* tag when there's already a well-established method with over 5 million uses, compared to just 28 k for is_sidepath=*?   In my opinion, using highway=footway and footway=sidewalk works perfectly. I can't think of any cycleway alongside a road where walking isn't allowed, so this approach covers 100% of cases — at least in my experience. What’s the advantage of introducing a new tag for this? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #4827 (comment) You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Message ID: ***@***.***>

[westnordost]

But really, the rationale for is_sidepath should really be mentioned on the proposal page. If these points are not mentioned, maybe they should be added Am 9. September 2024 14:16:03 MESZ schrieb ***@***.***" ***@***.***>:

…

Thanks for the long answer! Why should we wait for the is_sidepath=* tag when there's already a well-established method with over 5 million uses, compared to just 28 k for is_sidepath=*?   In my opinion, using highway=footway and footway=sidewalk works perfectly. I can't think of any cycleway alongside a road where walking isn't allowed, so this approach covers 100% of cases — at least in my experience. What’s the advantage of introducing a new tag for this? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #4827 (comment) You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Message ID: ***@***.***>

[1ec5]

cycleway=sidewalk is not used or deprecated, as far as I know.

The forum topic about this tag picked back up in the last few weeks. I’ve been struggling to keep track of the meandering discussion, but it seems like there’s at least some support for favoring is_sidepath=yes over cycleway=sidewalk. There’s also some consternation over that tag’s weird syntax, but it hasn’t translated to support for cycleway=sidepath for some reason.

[RubenKelevra]

@westnordost wrote:

footway=sidewalk does not work (for our purpose) because

1. It is for footways. But we want to capture whether the cycleway is straßenbegleitend. cycleway=sidewalk is not used or deprecated, as far as I know.

Well, cycleway=sidewalk would only make sense if you are not allowed to walk there, or bicycles have priority.

This is never the case for Germany - unless you want a separated sidewalk/bicycle way next to a road with two OSM-way - which I have never seen done before.

So it's common to use

highway=footway
footway=sidewalk
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
segregated=yes/no

... on sidewalks with bicycle infrastructure, if mapped as indiviual way along the road.

2. there is no footway=not_sidewalk (is_sidepath=no). But we would need that to be able to tag it correctly when the user answers that it is not a sidepath to a road

Well, there is:

highway=footway
footway=path

This combination has 3k uses. Would just need documentation in the wiki.

Edit: I've added documentation: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Afootway%3Dpath

[Discostu36]

2. there is no footway=not_sidewalk (is_sidepath=no). But we would need that to be able to tag it correctly when the user answers that it is not a sidepath to a road

Well, there is:

highway=footway
footway=path

This combination has 3k uses. Would just need documentation in the wiki.

Edit: I've added documentation: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Afootway%3Dpath

I've checked some random examples and some of them were sidepaths of a road. When documenting a tag, you should make sure that it is really used like you describe it. It could for example also mean that the footway is unpaved.

[RubenKelevra]

Thanks for the note, I'll check that.

It could for example also mean that the footway is unpaved.

This usage seems to be just an error, as there's surface=* for this detail of a way.

[RubenKelevra]

Hey @Discostu36,

I did a global check on the use of the tag, and here's what I found:

There’s a significant cluster of usage in Warwick, UK:

A smaller cluster also appears in Trowbridge, UK:

And another, even smaller cluster, in Hastings, UK:

From what I can tell using aerial imagery, these match the examples in my documentation. However, to be thorough, I’ve reached out to the users who created these tags to confirm everything lines up.

Outside of these areas, the tag is mostly used sporadically, with just a few isolated instances that might be misapplied—likely cases where highway=path would have been more appropriate.

Edit: Ah I think I found the use case you're referring to. It was made by one user in Geneseo, Illinois, USA. I wrote the user and ask if he maybe meant to tag them differently.

Here some examples of other usecases, with bing as background, so you can see how it's being used:

[westnordost]

Well, I had hoped to have summarized the next steps in my post above, but here we go, this is all back in discussion-mode.

I do not like the suggestion to put footway=sidewalk on a highway=cycleway (and StreetComplete should not retag the highway value if not necessary).

Also, establishing footway=path to mean any footway that is not a sidewalk would be just as well a new proposal as is_sidepath already is. I am not willing to establish this tagging under that definition without an approved proposal. (StreetComplete would very much establish any tag it tags in this regard, because this quest is going to be asked all over the place.)

So, anyway, if you dislike is_sidepath, better create a counter-proposal that would still solve our use case.

[RubenKelevra]

I didn't mean to suggest tagging highway=cycleway with footway=sidewalk, that makes no sense.

Just saying that it also makes no sense adding redundant information 5 million times to the database.

We already have those ways marked as sidewalks, why mark them a second time?

How is SC going to handle a highway=footway + footway=sidewalk with is_sidepath=no? Just ignore one of the tags?

Btw here's the highway=cycleway definition on when not to use the tag:

Cycling infrastructure that is an inherent part of a road - particularly "cycle lanes" which are a part of the road - should usually not be tagged as a separate cycleway, but by adding the cycleway=* tag to an existing highway=* instead.

I've always read that as a cycleway should be used in a circumstance where is_sidepath=yes would make sense.

[westnordost]

We already have those ways marked as sidewalks, why mark them a second time?

Yes, no need for that. But see #4827 (comment) , second section. Ideally, there'd first be a quest that asks whether a cycleway is a sidepath to a road or not - if it is not already tagged in one way or another.