Am 18.08.2014 14:38, schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > bicycle=designated is widely used but it not well defined. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:bicycle%3Ddesignated&redirect=no > is just redirect, to page that describes hopelessly inclusive rules "It > may imply extra usage rights for the given mode of transport (i.e. > normally a > vehicle is banned, but in this case it is allowed), or may be just a > suggested > route (e.g. bicycles can in most jurisdictions ride on any street, but some > particular streets are recommended and signed as such.)". > > According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dofficial > <some_access_tag>=designated "often includes ways that have no legal > dedication like e.g. recommended routes of a local bicycle club" - maybe > "often" > is not correct, but such tagging would not be against what is described > on wiki. > > bicycle=designated is described as standard for tagging of official > cycleways, but > AFAIK it is not defined on wiki that it should be used exclusively for > this purpose. > > So how one should tag in following situations? > > 1) official cycleway > 2) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is legal > 3) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is illegal but > usually nobody > bothers to enforce this rule > 4) road/footway/path not used widely by cyclists, cycling is illegal > 5) road where normally cyclists are banned but special signs/some other > rules change this > 6) signed cycle route, cycling is legal > 7) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal but usually nobody bothers to > enforce this rule > 8) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal and this rule is enforced > > I would use > > 1) [highway=cycleway] (bicycle=designated is implied) or [highway=path; > bicycle=designated] > 2) nothing if bicycle=yes is implied, bicycle=yes otherwise > 3) nothing if bicycle=no is implied, bicycle=no otherwise > 4) see above > 5) bicycle=yes > 6, 7, 8) tag route as relation, with bicycle access tagged as above > > but according to wiki > > 1) may be tagged also using bicycle=official > 5) should be tagged as bicycle=designated ("normally a vehicle is > banned, but in > this case it is allowed") > 6, 7, 8) should be tagged as bicycle=designated ("a suggested route") > > What more, there are people interested in different tags for situation > 3) and 4) > (usually they want to use bicycle=designated for 3). > > I am not sure what would be the best solution of situation. I thought about > > I) redefining =designated to the definition of =official > II) defining bicycle=designated to be like =official > III) retagging bicycle=designated on official cycleways to bicycle=official > IV) creation of new tag official_cycleway=yes/no that may be applied to > bicycle=designated ways that would clarify status > > I and II are not solving "I want to tag illegal but popular bicycle routes" > II in addition would mean that say horse=designated and bicycle=designated > follows different logic > III would mean that multiple data consumers need to follow tagging change > IV is an ugly hack that would be sooner or later followed by III
In Germany "designated" is equal to "official". Everything else is "yes" if legal or "no" if illegal. As addition we have bicycle=use_sidepath if the official cycleway is tagged as separated way. I would not take the relations in count but tag the access of the highways. My problem with official is/was that: 1. the original proposer stepped back 2. the only software, I know, that is supporting the value is JOSM 3. Last but least many mappers did change it back cause of 2. I am still in favour of "official" as stricter term of "designated" but only if you have a con-sense in meaning and usage. My 2 ct fly Some _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
