New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Bicycle Overlay: Distinguish between "signed bicycle allowed" and "not designated for cyclists" #4913
Comments
In Australia (at least AU-VIC) 'Shared Paths' which are usually non segregated and intended for bicycles and foot traffic are signed at the beginning of the path and at the end of the path however they can have markings on the surface of the path, this is more prevalent now that Victoria is now making 'e-scooters' legal to use. Bicycles aren't allowed on footpaths Bike only paths (or veloway) aren't common in Australia though the first one in Victoria is expected to open in the next few years as part of a larger road project. AFAIK there isn't a 'speed limit' to bicycles on 'shared paths' however there is a speed limit for e-scooters and that's at 20kph. Overall, the 'Australian Tagging Guidelines' states that footpaths/sidewalks shouldn't have any bicycle specific tags unless it's a 'shared way', there are however footways with bicycle prohibited signs though those are mainly found in parks. I usually tag those as Thanks |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Could this be used in combination as bicycle=no and bicycle:signed=yes? |
It could, but would anyone tag |
I seem to recall having a discussion about this with you previously. In
fact, I recall you were hesitant to include "no cycling allowed" in SC
because there was no way to know if bicycle=no was tagged because of an
explicit sign or because of the user's interpretation of local laws. I'd
say this could nicely settle that concern with an appropriately-worded
quest.
…On Mon, 24 Apr 2023, 21:22 Tobias Zwick, ***@***.***> wrote:
It could, but would anyone tag bicycle=no if there is no explicit sign?
The option "no cycling allowed" already exists.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#4913 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AETVUIXVBEEXQNWC4ELSS6DXCZO6JANCNFSM6AAAAAAWMBZV6Y>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Additional note (from #5059): To be consistent with on-street-way tagging, i.e. to have the same option there, And a general note: Given the intense prior discussion about this topic in this issue tracker scattered over various tickets and the various discussions in the community forums, I am surprised there is practically no feedback about this solution here. More than with other topics, there are so many people with opinions on how things should be tagged that I certainly don't want to go ahead with this without knowing that the community generally agrees that this is a good solution. |
Is "no cycling allowed" an option in SC? I don't see it |
Currently, it is not. But it could be, with this implementation. You already mentioned it a few posts above. |
FWIW, bicycle:signed makes sense to me. My question would be what would the assumed default be in SC when there is no such tag? |
In general I am trying to discuss new tagging schema on tagging mailing list / community.openstreetmap.org - not on issue trackers. But this one makes sense to me. |
Well, it was discussed on various threads on community.openstreetmap.org. I am not on the tagging mailing list.
|
I would be very much in favor of having this option in StreetComplete: To distinguish during my mapping activities between "path for pedestrians with no bike-related sign at all" and "path for pedestrians with a sign that explicitly allows bikes on this path". I am missing this feature very much. |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
(I hope this is not off topic:) If you get to improving the bicycle overlay, then I would also like to propose the following new feature:
I found a nice overview website, that presents many possible cycleway tagging options (including the two mentioned above) nicely: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Just to be clear: are they editing in external editor to make possible to later edit in SC? |
( @matkoniecz: Yes, I assume that most StreetComplete users are also capable of using other OSM editors. In my post I ment changing the highway=* property in a different OSM editor in order to be able to tag and view the "nice" gapless bicycle path on the SC bicycle overlay afterwards. I feel tempted to do so as well, sometimes... But this seems to be a general effect of SC, since it gives acces only to a restricted subset of all OSM tags, people -probably including me- tend to only use the best fitting tag out of this subset in SC, to describe the reality they see outside, even if more specific and better fitting tags exist in the "full" OSM tag set. I see this as an advantage of SC in general, but it has side effects as well, for example this one described here. |
We ran into the lack of We would very much appreciate a solution for this! The issue is made more complex for us, since iD does not support sidewalk tagging very well on the centerline, so SC would be the first tool to actually support this kid of mapping in a guided way. On the feature side, I can work with However, the new system should look at the traffic_sign tags as a source for an internal Side note:
The fact that iD does not have great sidewalk tagging on the centerline or other tags that allow to detail the kind of cycle infrastructure puzzles we as well – but it looks to me to be the same lack of focus on a solution that you notice here. I started experimenting with this for iD in openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema#345 and similar takes but the current UI and schema does not support this kind of improvements well, yet. |
Another thing I was wondering about: If this addition where to be added, does that mean something should change in the Sidewalk overlay? Since all this |
What should it change for the sidewalk overlay? |
Currently, the overlay only displays and allows to specify a foot-/cycle-/pathway as one of (tags in (...) are examples, more tags match the given categories):
bicycle=no
)highway=path
)highway=footway
)highway=cycleway + foot=designated
etc...)highway=cycleway + foot=designated + segregated=yes
etc...)highway=cycleway
)The obvious omission here is "Cyclists are explicitly allowed on footway" (
highway=footway + bicycle=yes
).There has been past discussions about this, the reason why it is not included is that it is not clear from these tags whether this is signed as such or the mapper was of the opinion that bikes are OK too. In the case that it isn't signed, it is not surveyable. In the worst case, StreetComplete users would think this tagging is wrong and must be corrected to "not designated for cyclists", removing the
bicycle=yes
when it indeed might be correct, due to some legislation or so that isn't signed.The suggestion now is to use
bicycle:signed=yes
to denote that the access restriction (bicycle=yes
) is indeed explicitly signed and thus surveyable.bicycle:signed=*
occured in related m-m-monster discussions in the forum several times (see https://community.openstreetmap.org/search?q=bicycle%3Asigned ) and as far as I remember, there was not really any opposition to it, only remarks about that it does not solve all the issues (discussed in that thread), e.g. that in Germany, if "bicycles allowed on footway" is signed, it means that bicycles must go at most at walking-speed.I do no plan to implement this soon, I first wanted to drop this concrete suggestion here for comments.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: