Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Nop]

Hi!

Am 05.01.2010 03:51, schrieb Steve Bennett:
> The important bit is to point out useful
> information to cyclists - and labelling every single pedestrian path as
> a cycleway would clearly be wrong.

This is exactly why I think it is a bad thing. It is too strongly biased 
towards a cyclists perspective and would "claim" anything that is 
suitable for cycling as a cycleway.

I am not a cyclist. I drive cars, I like to hike and I ride horses. Real 
cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to 
avoid. Therefore I disapprove of biased tagging. The current definition 
is already too fuzzy and has resulted in chaos. An even more biased 
approach is a change for the worse.

The tags in the database should be as neutral as possible so you can 
derive all sorts of maps from them. The bias towards some preferred 
interpretation like cycling should be introduced in the map style, not 
in the data.

So if you want to directly point out useful information for cyclists, 
you should introduce a new tag for cyclists, but leave the highway tags 
alone.

bye
Nop

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
>
>> Isn't that what a map is?  Some kind of look-up service for the real
>> world?
>
> There is a layer of interpretation in the middle, that's the crucial
> difference.

I don't know what you mean. That tags have definitions?

> Some people on these lists think that we should just store random facts at a
> very fine-grained level, and that some future renderers and routers will
> magically be able to make sense of the mess.

Close - rather, I think that we should just store VERIFIABLE facts at
a very fine-grained level, and that some future renderers and routers
will CONSISTENTLY be able to make sense of the DATA.

> I believe that the people best
> equipped to make sense of the facts are those entering them into the
> database, reducing the burden on present and future software developers.

Again, I don't know what you mean.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nop  wrote:
>
> Real
> cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
> avoid.

highway=cycleway if and only if it has an official sign...? :P

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Michiel Faber]

Roy Wallace wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nop  wrote:
>> Real
>> cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
>> avoid.
> 
> highway=cycleway if and only if it has an official sign...? :P
> 

Or indicated on an other way (e.g. with a different color of pavement)

> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Nop]

Hi!

Am 05.01.2010 11:00, schrieb Roy Wallace:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nop  wrote:
>>
>> Real
>> cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
>> avoid.
>
> highway=cycleway if and only if it has an official sign...? :P

There's a considerable fraction of mappers who are convinced of that and 
use it this way, yes.

As I said, current conditions are chaotic. There is still no agreed upon 
way to mark an official cycleway. And even more fuzzy definitions make 
things worse, not better.

bye
Nop

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Richard Mann]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop  wrote:

> Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
> avoid.


I know German cyclists are fast, but treating cycleways like motorways is
ridiculous :)

But seriously, you have a point - usability by bikes should be on a separate
tag (bicycle:practical, perhaps). And usability by pedestrians should be on
a separate tag too.

Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Nop]

Hi!

Am 05.01.2010 11:45, schrieb Richard Mann:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop  > wrote:
>
> Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
> avoid.
>
> I know German cyclists are fast, but treating cycleways like motorways
> is ridiculous :)

Ridiculous? You mean just as ridiculous as speed limits, one-ways or 
traffic lights? :-)

It is prohibited by law and you can get fined for it.

bye
Nop

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Peter Childs]

2010/1/5 Nop :
> Hi!
>
> Am 05.01.2010 11:45, schrieb Richard Mann:
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop > > wrote:
>>
>>     Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
>>     avoid.
>>
>> I know German cyclists are fast, but treating cycleways like motorways
>> is ridiculous :)
>
> Ridiculous? You mean just as ridiculous as speed limits, one-ways or
> traffic lights? :-)
>
> It is prohibited by law and you can get fined for it.
>
>

Legal or not we still need to sort out the difference between
path/footpath/cycleway/bridleway I can't say its clear.

The whole highway tag is a mess, even the lines between the road types
cause too many arguments than is really good.

I would suggest that cycles need a separate tag ie cycle=yes and
highways where the tag is missing should have reasonable defaults. I
would also do the same for pedestrians.

That way the highway tag becomes a tag that is based on "Judgement"
even if that "Judgement" has a set of rules so we are consistent. If
you think a cycle way is a cycle way then tag it as one, but also
support your decision with other tags. If you don't and someone wants
to argue with your judgement then fine. I'm sure the list is more than
happy to arbitrate should it turn into a tagging war. But at the end
of the day its a Judgement call what ever the rules for the judgement
are based on.


Peter.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Richard Mann]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Nop  wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Am 05.01.2010 11:45, schrieb Richard Mann:
> > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop  > > wrote:
> >
> > Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need
> to
> > avoid.
> >
> > I know German cyclists are fast, but treating cycleways like motorways
> > is ridiculous :)
>
> Ridiculous? You mean just as ridiculous as speed limits, one-ways or
> traffic lights? :-)
>
> It is prohibited by law and you can get fined for it.


It's ridiculous because pedestrians can cross a cycleway on the level (try
that on a motorway), and 99.999% of the time pedestrians can walk alongside
the cycleway on a paved footway (a facility that isn't generally provided
next to a motorway). They are very different. :|
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2010/1/5 Steve Bennett 

> Right, I'm not confusing the terms. Some people have used the word
> "designed" in definitions, as in "designed for bicycles". That's all.
>

btw: is there a difference between dedicated and designated?


Legally. Although general practice (I believe) is that if a cycleway is
> really wide enough for vehicles, and is used by *some* vehicles (ie,
> maintenance ones) then it should be tagged "track" rather than cycleway.
>

in here streets for maintenance are considered highway=service.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2010/1/5 Steve Bennett 

> Well, I*M*HO, it's close to perfect. If you (well, a reasonable person with
> some common sense when it comes to bike paths - not something Roy would
> admit to :)) looked through a map, and every time you saw something mapped
> as a bike path, it corresponded to something you thought of as a bike path -
> that would be perfect.
>


maybe you missed NOP's contribution in one of the parallel threads, so
again: your point of view is bike-focused, so you think every way or path
suitable for cycling should be tagged a cycleway. That was the way things
were done in the beginning (some years ago), but it led to some problems why
in densely mapped areas people began to reflect about it and decided to use
some "neutral" and objective criteria: legal designation.

That's for the database side. Still on the consumer side (e.g. rendered
maps) you could make this bike-focused map (without contaminating the data)
simply by rendering everything suitable for cycling just the same as a legal
cycleway.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Nop]

Hi!

Am 05.01.2010 12:45, schrieb Richard Mann:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Nop 
> It is prohibited by law and you can get fined for it.
>
> It's ridiculous because pedestrians can cross a cycleway on the level
> (try that on a motorway), and 99.999% of the time pedestrians can walk
> alongside the cycleway on a paved footway (a facility that isn't
> generally provided next to a motorway). They are very different. :|

The motorway example was of your making and yes, it is bad. :-)

My point is: There is an important difference between
- a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others)
- some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling

About like  the difference between
- a road marked as one-way (prohibited by law in one direction)
- a road that looks like it is too narrow for two cars to pass each other

I am looking for a way to tag the difference clearly. I do not like 
schemes that obfuscate it even more.

bye
Nop

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Richard Mann]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Nop  wrote:

> My point is: There is an important difference between
> - a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others)
> - some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling
>
> About like  the difference between
> - a road marked as one-way (prohibited by law in one direction)
> - a road that looks like it is too narrow for two cars to pass each other
>
Oneway is a separate tag, not a separate highway value. This whole argument
stems from a fight over what a particular highway value should mean.
There'll never be consensus, so lets find other tags to make the
distinctions we want, and discourage people from reading too much into
highway=cycleway (I wouldn't go so far as to deprecate it, just insist that
people add tags if they want to convey a more precise meaning).

Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Alex Mauer]

On 01/05/2010 05:49 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2010/1/5 Steve Bennett 
> 
>> Right, I'm not confusing the terms. Some people have used the word
>> "designed" in definitions, as in "designed for bicycles". That's all.
>>
> 
> btw: is there a difference between dedicated and designated?

Yes.  “dedicated” means that it is *only* for whatever it’s dedicated
to.  “designated” means that it is somehow identified as being for
whatever it’s designated for.

> Legally. Although general practice (I believe) is that if a cycleway is
>> really wide enough for vehicles, and is used by *some* vehicles (ie,
>> maintenance ones) then it should be tagged "track" rather than cycleway.
> 
> in here streets for maintenance are considered highway=service.

Here, the vehicles which maintain the paths are allowed to drive on
them.  For example, trucks carrying asphalt or tar for pavement work, or
trucks with a wood chipper for clearing brush.  Also, emergency vehicles
(ambulances, police, fire trucks) are allowed to use them if necessary
for carrying out their duties.  Obviously they need to be careful of the
physical limitations of their vehicles, but it’s legally allowed under
certain circumstances, in contradiction of “no motor vehicles” signs.

That doesn’t make it a track though, IMO.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Alex Mauer]

On 01/05/2010 06:29 AM, Nop wrote:

> The motorway example was of your making and yes, it is bad. :-)
> 
> My point is: There is an important difference between
> - a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others)
> - some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling

But is it a physical difference, a legal difference, or something else?

IMO: If it’s a physical difference it should be a different highway tag.
 If it’s a legal/signage difference, it probably belongs in the access=*
series of tags.  Otherwise, it should probably be a totally separate tag.

Note that in some (possibly most) jurisdictions, a “real, official
cycleway” is not prohibited by law for others.

I would suggest that the difference between tagging for your two
examples is most likely legal, and therefore:
highway=path+access=no+bicycle=designated for the former and
highway=path+bicycle=yes for the latter.

-Alex Mauer “hawke”



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Using relations to group highways

[John Smith]

Currently there is discussion on using relations to group segments of
a highway occurring:

http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2599

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Paul Johnson]

Richard Mann wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Nop  wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Am 05.01.2010 11:45, schrieb Richard Mann:
>> > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop > > > wrote:
>> >
>> > Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need
>> to
>> > avoid.
>> >
>> > I know German cyclists are fast, but treating cycleways like motorways
>> > is ridiculous :)
>>
>> Ridiculous? You mean just as ridiculous as speed limits, one-ways or
>> traffic lights? :-)
>>
>> It is prohibited by law and you can get fined for it.
>
>
> It's ridiculous because pedestrians can cross a cycleway on the level (try
> that on a motorway), and 99.999% of the time pedestrians can walk alongside
> the cycleway on a paved footway (a facility that isn't generally provided
> next to a motorway). They are very different. :|

I'm suddenly reminded of the W34 Special sign found in California near
the Mexican border.
http://www.phototour.minneapolis.mn.us/pics/5399.jpg




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Paul Johnson]

Roy Wallace wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nop  wrote:
>>
>> Real
>> cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
>> avoid.
>
> highway=cycleway if and only if it has an official sign...? :P

No.  There seems to be some confusion in the Portland area about this. 
I'd tag it as a cycleway unless it's too narrow for two oncoming
cyclists to pass safely without slowing down or it's specifically marked
as a pedestrian area.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways

[Alex Mauer]

On 01/05/2010 01:32 PM, John Smith wrote:
> Currently there is discussion on using relations to group segments of
> a highway occurring:
> 
> http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2599

In that ticket, you wrote: “we think administrative polygons should be
used for custom highway shields, instead of trying to tell the rendering
software explicitly which shield to use”

How might this work?  Presumably there’s some idea of linking
primary/secondary/tertiary each with an administrative level, using that
to determine which of the administrative polygons applies to the route
in question, and then deciding from there which shield to use.  Do I
have it right?

You also wrote, “we have documented our usage of it, although it's mixed
in with a lot of other aussie info and could possibly do well to stand
on it's own.“

Can you point to this, even if it is mixed in with other stuff?

Thanks

-Alex Mauer “hawke”



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Richard Mann
 wrote:
>
> ... lets find other tags to make the
> distinctions we want, and discourage people from reading too much into
> highway=cycleway (I wouldn't go so far as to deprecate it, just insist that
> people add tags if they want to convey a more precise meaning).

+1. I've made several detailed suggestions in the past, but the usual
response is "but that's too much typing!". What can do...

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Roy Wallace]

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Alex Mauer  wrote:
>
>> My point is: There is an important difference between
>> - a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others)
>> - some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling
...
>
> I would suggest that the difference between tagging for your two
> examples is most likely legal, and therefore:
> highway=path+access=no+bicycle=designated for the former and
> highway=path+bicycle=yes for the latter.

Close - but bicycle=yes just means bicycles are legal
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access). For "suitability"
(whatever that means), I'd suggest bicycle=yes + bicycle:suitable=yes.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways

[Matthias Julius]

Alex Mauer  writes:

> On 01/05/2010 01:32 PM, John Smith wrote:
>> Currently there is discussion on using relations to group segments of
>> a highway occurring:
>> 
>> http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2599
>
> In that ticket, you wrote: “we think administrative polygons should be
> used for custom highway shields, instead of trying to tell the rendering
> software explicitly which shield to use”
>
> How might this work?  Presumably there’s some idea of linking
> primary/secondary/tertiary each with an administrative level, using that
> to determine which of the administrative polygons applies to the route
> in question, and then deciding from there which shield to use.  Do I
> have it right?

This could be derived from the ref tag and administrative boundary.
"A 2" should get a different shield in Germany than in the UK.  Same
goes for "M 5" in Michigan or UK.

The road classification is not always linked to highway type.  In the
US a primary road can be a US or state highway for example and a US
highway mey be a primary, trunk or motorway.

Matthias

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Alex Mauer]

On 01/05/2010 03:05 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Alex Mauer 
>  wrote:
>>
>>> My point is: There is an important difference between
>>> - a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others)
>>> - some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling
> ...
>>
>> I would suggest that the difference between tagging for your two
>> examples is most likely legal, and therefore:
>> highway=path+access=no+bicycle=designated for the former and
>> highway=path+bicycle=yes for the latter.
> 
> Close - but bicycle=yes just means bicycles are legal
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access). For "suitability"
> (whatever that means), I'd suggest bicycle=yes + bicycle:suitable=yes.

In point of fact I would do neither, because I don’t see the need to
point out particularly suitable biking routes that aren’t officially
designated bike routes.  Any way of doing so would be far too subjective
for my tastes.  But if I really felt a strong need to apply a tag for
some reason, it would be bicycle=yes.

-Alex Mauer “hawke”



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways

[Alex Mauer]

On 01/05/2010 03:45 PM, Matthias Julius wrote:
> Alex Mauer  writes:
> 
>> On 01/05/2010 01:32 PM, John Smith wrote:
>>> Currently there is discussion on using relations to group segments of
>>> a highway occurring:
>>>
>>> http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2599
>>
>> In that ticket, you wrote: “we think administrative polygons should be
>> used for custom highway shields, instead of trying to tell the rendering
>> software explicitly which shield to use”
>>
>> How might this work?  Presumably there’s some idea of linking
>> primary/secondary/tertiary each with an administrative level, using that
>> to determine which of the administrative polygons applies to the route
>> in question, and then deciding from there which shield to use.  Do I
>> have it right?
> 
> This could be derived from the ref tag and administrative boundary.
> "A 2" should get a different shield in Germany than in the UK.  Same
> goes for "M 5" in Michigan or UK.

That seems like a sensible thing to do, but as far as I can tell, John
considers that to be “trying to tell the rendering software explicitly
which shield to use.” (The process you describe is roughly the plan for
the US as far as I know, and thus must not be what he’s talking about)
Hence the request for clarification.

-Alex Mauer “hawke”



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Roy Wallace]

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Alex Mauer  wrote:
>
>> Close - but bicycle=yes just means bicycles are legal
>> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access). For "suitability"
>> (whatever that means), I'd suggest bicycle=yes + bicycle:suitable=yes.
>
> In point of fact I would do neither, because I don’t see the need to
> point out particularly suitable biking routes that aren’t officially
> designated bike routes.  Any way of doing so would be far too subjective
> for my tastes.  But if I really felt a strong need to apply a tag for
> some reason, it would be bicycle=yes.

Yes, I agree with all of that - but remember that bicycle=yes refers
to legality only.

My point is that if there are some who feel the need to tag
suitability, this should be done with a new tag, such as *:suitable=*
(as no current tags are documented as referring to suitability - and
with good reason).

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways

[John Smith]

I'm talking about people adding network=us_ny_ny_co

I'm not talking about things like network=NH, ref=1 or ref=M5

As for how it might render

Wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Custom_Highway_Shields

On 06/01/2010, Alex Mauer  wrote:
> On 01/05/2010 03:45 PM, Matthias Julius wrote:
>> Alex Mauer  writes:
>>
>>> On 01/05/2010 01:32 PM, John Smith wrote:
 Currently there is discussion on using relations to group segments of
 a highway occurring:

 http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2599
>>>
>>> In that ticket, you wrote: “we think administrative polygons should be
>>> used for custom highway shields, instead of trying to tell the rendering
>>> software explicitly which shield to use”
>>>
>>> How might this work?  Presumably there’s some idea of linking
>>> primary/secondary/tertiary each with an administrative level, using that
>>> to determine which of the administrative polygons applies to the route
>>> in question, and then deciding from there which shield to use.  Do I
>>> have it right?
>>
>> This could be derived from the ref tag and administrative boundary.
>> "A 2" should get a different shield in Germany than in the UK.  Same
>> goes for "M 5" in Michigan or UK.
>
> That seems like a sensible thing to do, but as far as I can tell, John
> considers that to be “trying to tell the rendering software explicitly
> which shield to use.” (The process you describe is roughly the plan for
> the US as far as I know, and thus must not be what he’s talking about)
> Hence the request for clarification.
>
> -Alex Mauer “hawke”
>
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

[Steve Bennett]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> maybe you missed NOP's contribution in one of the parallel threads, so
> again: your point of view is bike-focused, so you think every way or path
> suitable for cycling should be tagged a cycleway.


I'll restate it: every way or path *especially* suitable. More suitable than
average. Much more suitable than average, if you like.

Anyway, I'm obviously not getting my message across, so I'm going to have to
think about how to express it more clearly. I'm not trying to turn OSM into
a bike project - I'm actually just trying to work out a definition of
cycleway that people can agree on and that is useful.


> That's for the database side. Still on the consumer side (e.g. rendered
> maps) you could make this bike-focused map (without contaminating the data)
> simply by rendering everything suitable for cycling just the same as a legal
> cycleway.
>

Yeah, I'll be investigating that direction too.

Steve
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Richard Mann]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:

> highway=path+access=no+bicycle=designated for the former and
> highway=path+bicycle=yes for the latter.
>
Each to their own, but I'd prefer:
highway=cycleway+designation=official_cycleway (or whatever) (for those
officially signposted) and
highway=cycleway (for those that are not officially signposted but are
otherwise "just as good")

You don't really need the access=no (or foot=no) for the former; it's
distinctly rare that there's no route for pedestrians alongside. Using
bicycle=designated does not give the precision required (sorry Alex, I know
it's your pet scheme, but I don't think it works).

Ekkehart - other than the obvious pain of adding another tag to the legions
of official cycleways in Germany, is there any real problem with this
approach?

Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Richard Welty]

On 1/5/10 6:56 PM, Richard Mann wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Alex Mauer > wrote:


highway=path+access=no+bicycle=designated for the former and
highway=path+bicycle=yes for the latter.

Each to their own, but I'd prefer:
highway=cycleway+designation=official_cycleway (or whatever) (for 
those officially signposted) and
highway=cycleway (for those that are not officially signposted but are 
otherwise "just as good")
You don't really need the access=no (or foot=no) for the former; it's 
distinctly rare that there's no route for pedestrians alongside. Using 
bicycle=designated does not give the precision required (sorry Alex, I 
know it's your pet scheme, but I don't think it works).
Ekkehart - other than the obvious pain of adding another tag to the 
legions of official cycleways in Germany, is there any real problem 
with this approach?



it's very bicycle focused.

within the US, i am increasingly seeing things that might once have just 
been called bike paths
that are now designated as multi use trails, e.g. the Mohawk Hudson Bike 
Path here in Albany
has become the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail. Likewise, the Pinellas 
Trail in the St. Pete
Florida area is officially described as a multi-use trail for the cases 
where it using old railway

roadbeds.

highway=path+bicycle=designated+foot=designated

rather accurately describes the intended official usage pattern of this 
class of path. i much
prefer it to anything cobbed together around highway=cycleway, which is 
inherently asymmetric

where the official policy for the trail is quite symmetric.

richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

[Nick Austin]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> I'll restate it: every way or path *especially* suitable. More suitable than
> average. Much more suitable than average, if you like.
>
> Anyway, I'm obviously not getting my message across, so I'm going to have to
> think about how to express it more clearly. I'm not trying to turn OSM into
> a bike project - I'm actually just trying to work out a definition of
> cycleway that people can agree on and that is useful.

The way I see it is that highway=cycleway and highway=bridleway are
legacies from before OSM had access tags (foot=, bicycle-, horse=
etc.).  The original meaning for cycleway and bridleway have
disappeared so now cycleway, bridleway and footway are synonyms with
slightly different defaults for the access tags..

Just to be clear, highway=cycleway is shorthand for highway=footway +
bicycle=yes and highway=bridleway is shorthand for highway=footway +
horse=yes.  There's no need for this "definition creep" nonsense.

BTW, footway is a bad name.  If OSM was starting over it I'd suggest
that it should be highway=narrowway or similar, used for all ways that
are narrower than a track.

Nick.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Richard Mann]

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Richard Welty wrote:

>  within the US, i am increasingly seeing things that might once have just
> been called bike paths
> that are now designated as multi use trails, e.g. the Mohawk Hudson Bike
> Path here in Albany
> has become the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail. Likewise, the Pinellas Trail
> in the St. Pete
> Florida area is officially described as a multi-use trail for the cases
> where it using old railway
> roadbeds.
>
> highway=path+bicycle=designated+foot=designated
>
> rather accurately describes the intended official usage pattern of this
> class of path. i much
> prefer it to anything cobbed together around highway=cycleway, which is
> inherently asymmetric
> where the official policy for the trail is quite symmetric.
>
> As long as you don't mean anything very precise (and don't intend everyone
to understand anything very precise) by bicycle=designated and
foot=designated then I've no problem with that.

BTW "Cycleway" in the UK doesn't indicate any bias to cyclists (in fact
pedestrians have legal priority).

Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

[Alex Mauer]

On 01/05/2010 06:26 PM, Nick Austin wrote:
> Just to be clear, highway=cycleway is shorthand for highway=footway +
> bicycle=yes and highway=bridleway is shorthand for highway=footway +
> horse=yes.

No it’s not.  highway=cycleway is shorthand for
highway=path+bicycle=designated and highway=bridleway is shorthand for
highway=path+horse=designated.  This is pretty clearly documented on the
wiki.

-Alex Mauer “hawke”



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

[Roy Wallace]

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Nick Austin  wrote:
>
> Just to be clear, highway=cycleway is shorthand for highway=footway +
> bicycle=yes and highway=bridleway is shorthand for highway=footway +
> horse=yes.  There's no need for this "definition creep" nonsense.
>
> BTW, footway is a bad name.  If OSM was starting over it I'd suggest
> that it should be highway=narrowway or similar, used for all ways that
> are narrower than a track.

highway=path precisely fits your definition (in my mind) of "narrowway".

So, use highway=path + access tags.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways

[Alex Mauer]

On 01/05/2010 05:23 PM, John Smith wrote:
> I'm talking about people adding network=us_ny_ny_co

I’ve never seen that, either in use or anywhere in wiki documentation.
Where would that be used?

> I'm not talking about things like network=NH, ref=1 or ref=M5
> 
> As for how it might render
> 
> Wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Custom_Highway_Shields

Well, I know what the shields themselves look like.  Are you suggesting
a tag shield=* which would refer to specific shields used to render
behind a particular highway’s ref=* tag?

-Alex Mauer “hawke”



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways

[John Smith]

On a bb so I can't reply as well as I'd like.

As for the network=* check out US and Aussie tagging guidelines its on the wiki

As for the shields this is deviating from the topic at hand but for it
the shield can be derived from the lookup table on the wiki and then
extra preprossesing in osm2pgsql to assign a shield based on admin
polygons + info from the lookup table

On 06/01/2010, Alex Mauer  wrote:
> On 01/05/2010 05:23 PM, John Smith wrote:
>> I'm talking about people adding network=us_ny_ny_co
>
> I’ve never seen that, either in use or anywhere in wiki documentation.
> Where would that be used?
>
>> I'm not talking about things like network=NH, ref=1 or ref=M5
>>
>> As for how it might render
>>
>> Wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Custom_Highway_Shields
>
> Well, I know what the shields themselves look like.  Are you suggesting
> a tag shield=* which would refer to specific shields used to render
> behind a particular highway’s ref=* tag?
>
> -Alex Mauer “hawke”
>
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

[Anthony]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Steve Bennett  wrote:

> I'm actually just trying to work out a definition of cycleway that people
> can agree on and that is useful.
>

Well, I don't think you're ever going to get everyone to agree on anything,
but:

Cycleway - a way exclusively for cycles.
Motorway - a way exclusively for motor vehicles.
Footway - a way exclusively for foot traffic.
Road - a way for motor vehicles and other traffic
Path - a non-specific or shared use path - motor vehicles not allowed
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2010/1/6 Steve Bennett 

> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> maybe you missed NOP's contribution in one of the parallel threads, so
>> again: your point of view is bike-focused, so you think every way or path
>> suitable for cycling should be tagged a cycleway.
>
>
> I'll restate it: every way or path *especially* suitable. More suitable
> than average. Much more suitable than average, if you like.
>
> Anyway, I'm obviously not getting my message across, so I'm going to have
> to think about how to express it more clearly. I'm not trying to turn OSM
> into a bike project - I'm actually just trying to work out a definition of
> cycleway that people can agree on and that is useful.
>


in Germany we have a very simple rule: if there is one of the signs
(examples here):
http://www.hamburg.de/image/293720/verkehrszeichen-fahrradweg-bildqu.jpg
http://www.wilfo.com/blog/archives/fahrrad_weg.jpg
http://www.auto-und-verkehr.de/uploads/RTEmagicC_zeichen240_fahrradweg.gif.gif

it is a cycleway, if there's none of this, it is not. The rule is simple and
easy to apply. Alternatively you can use path and additional tags (see
wiki). I don't get your problem.

Btw: I do go by bike, almost everytime I go somewhere, and OSM is already a
kind of bike project in some point of view, but as a cyclist it is still
important to me if a way is a dedicated cycleway (different rules apply,
e.g. you generally legally _have_ to take it by bike if you go where it
goes, pedestrians can't take it), or not.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

[Steve Bennett]

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:

> it is a cycleway, if there's none of this, it is not. The rule is simple
> and easy to apply.


Yeah, it's just not useful in many countries - like Australia. Bike-only
paths are almost non-existent. There are lots of shared use paths, and lots
of unlabelled paths. I basically want the shared use paths to be tagged as
cycleways (because that's the function they serve), and *some* of the
unlabelled paths to be tagged as cycleways.


> Alternatively you can use path and additional tags (see wiki). I don't get
> your problem.
>

Trouble is, current usage (and renderer support) treats "highway=path" very
differently from "highway=footway". It seems to mean "walking track with
unmade surface".


>
> Btw: I do go by bike, almost everytime I go somewhere, and OSM is already a
> kind of bike project in some point of view, but as a cyclist it is still
> important to me if a way is a dedicated cycleway (different rules apply,
> e.g. you generally legally _have_ to take it by bike if you go where it
> goes, pedestrians can't take it), or not.
>
>
Why is that? Presumably you think the dedicated cycleway is a better way to
get somewhere. I argue that it's not the sign that makes that the case, it's
the construction of the path, its location, etc.

Steve
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

[Anthony]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Steve Bennett  wrote:

> Why is that? Presumably you think the dedicated cycleway is a better way to
> get somewhere. I argue that it's not the sign that makes that the case, it's
> the construction of the path, its location, etc.
>

Doesn't the lack of pedestrians make for a better way to get somewhere?  Is
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/05/25/nyregion/25broadway.xlarge1.jpga
good cycleway?  It's closed to motor vehicles, wide, paved, and
straight.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

[Steve Bennett]

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>> Why is that? Presumably you think the dedicated cycleway is a better way
>> to get somewhere. I argue that it's not the sign that makes that the case,
>> it's the construction of the path, its location, etc.
>>
>
> Doesn't the lack of pedestrians make for a better way to get somewhere?  Is
>
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/05/25/nyregion/25broadway.xlarge1.jpga
>  good cycleway?  It's closed to motor vehicles, wide, paved, and straight.
>
>
If you'd like to have a constructive discussion, I'll be over there
--->

Steve
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

[Richard Welty]

On 1/5/10 10:01 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Trouble is, current usage (and renderer support) treats "highway=path" 
> very differently from "highway=footway". It seems to mean "walking 
> track with unmade surface".
>
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.77494&lon=-73.81625&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF

this shows a segment of the Mohawk Hudson Bike-Hike Trail. i haven't yet 
switched it all over to use

highway=path+bicycle=designated+foot=designated

so the left side is still tagged

highway=cycleway

it renders the same in mapnik and osmarender for both tagging 
approaches. so what renderers are challenged
by this, exactly?

richard


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

[Roy Wallace]

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> ... There are lots of shared use paths, and lots
> of unlabelled paths. I basically want the shared use paths to be tagged as
> cycleways (because that's the function they serve), and *some* of the
> unlabelled paths to be tagged as cycleways.

Shared path (signed with pedestrian/bicycle symbol): highway=path +
foot=designated + bicycle=designated.
Unlabelled paths, if you insist: highway=path +
bicycle:much_more_suitable_than_average=yes (+ foot=* where
applicable)

> Trouble is, current usage (and renderer support) treats "highway=path" very
> differently from "highway=footway". It seems to mean "walking track with
> unmade surface".

Re: current usage: not true. See e.g.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath/Examples
Re: current renderer style sheets: Please file a bug (if there isn't
one filed already) for the particular style sheet you are referring
to, if you think the rendering isn't appropriate given the
descriptions in wiki.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

[Anthony]

Lightbulb goes off.

Now I get it.

highway=cycleway means highway=path, bicycle=designated.

bicycle=designated means bicycles are explicitly allowed (generally, by
signage)

highway=footway means highway=path, foot=designated

therefore, highway=footway, bicycle=designated means highway=cycleway,
foot=designated, which means highway=path, foot=designated,
bicycle=designated.

Hmm, okay, I think I can deal with that.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

[Steve Bennett]

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Richard Welty wrote:

> On 1/5/10 10:01 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> > Trouble is, current usage (and renderer support) treats "highway=path"
> > very differently from "highway=footway". It seems to mean "walking
> > track with unmade surface".
> >
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.77494&lon=-73.81625&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF
>
> this shows a segment of the Mohawk Hudson Bike-Hike Trail. i haven't yet
> switched it all over to use
>
> highway=path+bicycle=designated+foot=designated
>
> so the left side is still tagged
>
> highway=cycleway
>
> it renders the same in mapnik and osmarender for both tagging
> approaches. so what renderers are challenged
> by this, exactly?
>
>
Oh, cool! Sorry for the mistake. It must be the use of "bicycle=designated"
- I think I've used "bicycle=yes" in the past, and just seen the generic
"highway=path" rendering. That's quite interesting... So, the only cases
where disagreement remains would be where a path is not *designated* a bike
path, but acts/looks like one. Hmm.

Steve
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

[Steve Bennett]

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> therefore, highway=footway, bicycle=designated means highway=cycleway,
> foot=designated, which means highway=path, foot=designated,
> bicycle=designated.
>
>
Yeah, it's a bit ugly. Should we be deprecating one or the other, or doing
mass updates or something?

Steve
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

[Steve Bennett]

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Richard Welty wrote:

> within the US, i am increasingly seeing things that might once have just
> been called bike paths
> that are now designated as multi use trails, e.g. the Mohawk Hudson Bike
> Path here in Albany
> has become the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail. Likewise, the Pinellas Trail
> in the St. Pete
> Florida area is officially described as a multi-use trail for the cases
> where it using old railway
> roadbeds.
>

Yeah, same here. You barely see the term "bike path" at all. From the OSM
point of view, I just see it as a hierarchy:

footway: pedestrians
cycleway: bicycles and pedestrians

There are some countries with large numbers of genuine dedicated non-foot
cycleways, though.




>
> highway=path+bicycle=designated+foot=designated
>
> rather accurately describes the intended official usage pattern of this
> class of path. i much
> prefer it to anything cobbed together around highway=cycleway, which is
> inherently asymmetric
> where the official policy for the trail is quite symmetric.
>
>
The asymmetry arises from the requirements of the modes of transport:
anything that a bike can ride on, a pedestrian can walk on - but not vice
versa.

Anyway, with the realisation that cycleway is actually treated the same as
highway=path,bicycle=designated (I thought this was just a proposal, I
didn't realise it actually worked), everything gets simpler. I'm not even
sure what we're fighting over anymore exactly...perhaps someone can remind
me.

The biggest problem I can see at the moment is I really don't want to tag
anything "bicycle=designated" unless I'm certain it really *is* designated
that way (which I can't do from aerial photography), but I *do* want to tag
it "highway=cycleway" without such certainty. Or maybe I just tag it
"fixme=verify designation".

Steve
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging