I disagree here, a cycle map should not ignore mtb:scale, and a cycle map for commuting should probably ignore mtb:scale beyond 1. The exact same for footways and sac_scale. There will always be discussions and mapper's errors for cycleway, so the safest way to go for a renderer or a router is to consider specialized tags such as mtb:*. Yves Yves Cainaud
Le 2 avril 2020 11:10:58 GMT+02:00, Volker Schmidt <vosc...@gmail.com> a écrit : >If a highway is mtb:scale=2 it is definitely not a cycleway. It is a >highway=path with mtb:scale=2 >If this were to encounter a "cycleway" with mtb:scale=2 , I would >consider >this an error and retag it as highway=path without hesitation. > >I agree, that this is not explicitly stated in the bicycle wiki page, >and >should be added there, but I would assume that this is the common >understanding. Anything else would cause major problems with the huge >stock >of existing highway=cycleway in OSM that have no mtb:scale tag. Routers >for >non-MTB bicycles would all need to change and evaluate the mtb:scale >tag. > >There is already a similar problem with the OpenCycleMap rendering in >the >sense that it renders a dedicated cycle path in the same way as a path >with >bicycle=yes. This has the effect that many MTB friends have added >bicycle=yes to "normal" hiking paths to make them appear as MTB >friendly on >the map, but also with the problem that when I look at that map I >wrongly >see a cycle paths where I would never be able to pass with my loaded >touring bike. > >Please keep paths that can only be used by MTB clearly different from >cycleways that can be used non-MTB bicycles. > > > >On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 10:11, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> >wrote: > >> My view based on current usage, reading of the wiki and general >opinion is >> that highway=cycleway is meant for any path that is either >> designed/intended for bicycles or specifically designated >(signposted) for >> bicycles, irrespective of if it's an urban track or mountain biking >track. >> >> So a mountain bike track and an urban cycle track should both be >tagged >> with highway=cycleway as the primary tag. surface= and smoothness= >can help >> for both to help guide users on which kind of bicycle the track is >suitable >> for, and mtb:scale=/mtb:scale:imba= are used to indicate this is a >> designated mountain biking track. >> >> highway=path is specifically for a general use / unspecified path, >which a >> mountain biking track may be if it's informal/shared, but purpose >built and >> signposted mountain bike tracks don't fall into that category. >> >> A similar thing applies to hiking tracks, sometimes they are >designated >> walking paths so use highway=footway + surface + sac_scale, but >sometimes >> they are just an unmarked or mixed use path so are highway=path + >surface + >> sac_scale. >> >> Open to other opinions or comments. >> >> On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 18:56, Phyks <ph...@phyks.me> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> A discussion in CyclOSM issue tracker [1] spotted that there exists >>> around 3500 highway=cycleway around the world which have specific >>> mountain bikes (MTB) tags. In particular, around 800 >highway=cycleway >>> around the world declare a mtb:scale greater than 2, which would >make >>> them impassable without a proper mountain bike. Such cycleways would >not >>> be passable with a regular city bike. One example of such a case is >at >>> [2]. >>> >>> Looking at the wiki page [3], >>> "the highway=cycleway tag indicates a separate way for the use of >>> cyclists" >>> which does not mandate explicitly that a cycleway be accessible with >any >>> kind of bikes and should also cover dedicated paths for MTB. >However, >>> the documentation around cycleways and bike features is very >oriented >>> towards city cycling and there is no illustration about MTB-specific >>> cycleways. >>> >>> So, is this considered a valid tagging or should it be represented >by >>> another highway class (path, track, etc)? If this is valid, I >propose to >>> add a statement in the wiki explicitly mentioning that cycleways can >be >>> restricted for specific kinds of bicycles, for future questions. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/cyclosm/cyclosm-cartocss-style/issues/208 >>> [2] >https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/86978431#map=17/41.26426/-73.91907 >>> [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway >>> >>> -- >>> Phyks >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
