Hello, The first time I saw cycleways on the map in the Alps on mountains I was surprised, and not really confident with the tagging.
I think I agree that a cycleway should be useable by any kind of bicycle. What we have today to tag mtb ways : If it’s a shared path with pedestrian (hiking) or horses or used for farming/forest etc we have keys highway=path and highway=track. I think we all agree with that. Mtb route can be used also over them. For a leisure sport park for mountain biking I think leisure=track + sport=mtb could be used I guess https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dtrack Example : https://youtu.be/cD8XaOatg5I?t=307 The problem here is that I don’t see what a way made only for mtb which is not a leisure=track could looks like. For me if it’s in the wilderness it can be used by anyone, like hikers so it should be a highway=path. Do you have examples (photos, videos) ? Le jeu. 2 avr. 2020 à 10:11, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> a écrit : > 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 > -- Florimond Berthoux
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
