OpenStreetMap Forum

The Free Wiki World Map

You are not logged in.

#1 2013-07-25 11:15:00

Çağatay
Member
Registered: 2013-07-25
Posts: 2

Classification of Cycle Paths

Hallo!
I have been in Germany for some time and OpenStreetMap helped me so much for finding my way, so I'm trying to contribute to it (though it is almost perfect)! big_smile

I want to improve the bicycle/pedestrian roads of the town where I'm currently in, because it seems there are some inconsistencies in bicycle roads. For example, as far as I see, these 4 roads are similar - sidewalks for bikes and pedestrians, segregated by color/line. But,

*One is a separate cycle path (Paul-Gossen-Straße: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.57 … 8&layers=M),
*One is a generic path (bicycle=yes, foot=yes, segregated=yes. Koldestraße: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.57 … 8&layers=M),
*One is a footpath (bicycle=designated, foot=yes. Äußere Brucker Straße: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.58 … 8&layers=M),
*One is not seperately shown but the main road is marked that there is a parallel track bike lane (Äußere Brucker Straße again: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.58 … 8&layers=M).

And also some paths are primarily for bikes, some are not a part of pavement but a lane of the main road etc. I don't know German so I can't read the documentation of classifications for Germany, can anyone summarize the classification of cycle&foot paths in English? smile So I wouln't ruin the map with wrong corrections.

Last edited by Çağatay (2013-07-25 13:04:18)

Offline

#2 2013-07-25 16:45:22

aighes
Member
From: Germany
Registered: 2009-03-29
Posts: 5,259
Website

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

To cut a long story short: There is no rule, telling you how it should be done, but all possibilities you have mentioned above are correct. The only hint I can give you is: Take a look in the surrounding area and try to use similar taggings. If there is no clear tagging, then choose your favourite one. Take care of access-Tags. You can find the default values for Germany in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_ … ns#Germany

Sorry for this answer, but this is the confused situation with bicycle- and footways in Germany.

Last edited by aighes (2013-07-25 16:56:42)


Viele Grüße
Henning, developer of RadReiseKarte

Offline

#3 2013-07-25 18:35:36

EvanE
Member
Registered: 2009-11-30
Posts: 5,716

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

Çağatay wrote:

I want to improve the bicycle/pedestrian roads of the town where I'm currently in, because it seems there are some inconsistencies in bicycle roads. For example, as far as I see, these 4 roads are similar - sidewalks for bikes and pedestrians, segregated by color/line. But,

With cycle-/footway along roads are two problem areas:
  -  map as its own way or as attributes of the road?
  -  what to use for a seperate way? cycleway, footway, path + access?

1) Use a seperate way if it is divided by some space from the road it is running along.
    This means you may not change to the road at every point.
    Division can be grass, trees, brusches, fence/guardrail etc.

    A curb is for OSM-purpose not considered a seperation.
    In this case footway/sidewalk=left/right/both/none and cycleway=track/...
    as attribute on the road are the preffered way to express the situation.

2) When having combined ways for bicycles and pedestrians you have to decide to use
    either highway=cycleway or highway=footway and give access to the other transportmode
    with bicycle=yes/designated resp. foot=yes/designated. But there is no clear preference
    which of the two to use.
    Because of this uncertainty people startet to use highway=path together with explicitly
    stating the access rights.

    All three version are accepted forms to express combined cycle-/footways in OSM.
    bicycle/foot=yes means it is allowed
    bicycle/foot=designated express a legal designation. Cyclist/pedestrian must use this way,
    other transport modes are not allowed to use this way.

Çağatay wrote:

*One is a separate cycle path (Paul-Gossen-Straße),
*One is a generic path (bicycle=yes, foot=yes, segregated=yes. (Koldestraße),
*One is a footpath (bicycle=designated, foot=yes. (Äußere Brucker Straße),
*One is not seperately shown but the main road is marked that there is a parallel track bike lane (Äußere Brucker Straße again).

I hope, that my explanations above, are sufficent for the mentioned roads. I don't know this area, so I'm not able to give any specific advise.

Çağatay wrote:

And also some paths are primarily for bikes, some are not a part of pavement but a lane of the main road etc. I don't know German so I can't read the documentation of classifications for Germany, can anyone summarize the classification of cycle&foot paths in English? smile So I wouln't ruin the map with wrong corrections.

The english versions mainly explains the same as the german version.
If a cyclepath is part of the roadsurface, in other words a lane on the road, then you should use either
  -  cycleway=lane             separated by a continuos line -> other vehicle are not allowed.
  -  cycleway=shared_lane separated by a dashed line     -> other vehicle may use this lane.

PS: Welcome to OSM and the forum

Edbert (EvanE)

Offline

#4 2013-07-28 01:50:28

Çağatay
Member
Registered: 2013-07-25
Posts: 2

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

Thanks for the comments! Okay, then I will try my best to contribute to the map! big_smile

Offline

#5 2013-07-28 07:46:08

PeeWee32
Member
From: Leusden, NL
Registered: 2010-11-28
Posts: 1,026
Website

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

EvanE wrote:

2) When having combined ways for bicycles and pedestrians you have to decide to use
    either highway=cycleway or highway=footway and give access to the other transportmode
    with bicycle=yes/designated resp. foot=yes/designated. But there is no clear preference
    which of the two to use.
    Because of this uncertainty people startet to use highway=path together with explicitly
    stating the access rights.

    All three version are accepted forms to express combined cycle-/footways in OSM.
    bicycle/foot=yes means it is allowed
    bicycle/foot=designated express a legal designation. Cyclist/pedestrian must use this way,
    other transport modes are not allowed to use this way.

Like topic starte I am also a foreigner who likes to ride a bicycle in Germany. I've also seen that in Germany people use "path" for cycleway or combined cycleway/footway. I find this very confusing. Why? A path is very oftend used for an unpaved way. Most cycleways and footways (blue shields) are paved.  If a surface tag is added it is better ofcourse but still... why use path?

The other thing I find confusing is that for an official cycleway (bleu shield with bicycle sign) the combination of highway=path and bicycle=YES is used. Bicycle= yes is meaningless because in Germany a Path implies that you are allowed to use a bicycle. If you want to indicate that it is a cycleway it is better to use bicycle=designated but still.... why use path?

So my suggestion is:

If it's a blue shield with a bicycle:
Highway=cycleway

If its a combination of cycleway/footway
highway=cycleway + foot = designated  OR
highway=footway + bicycle=designated


The other thing I do not understand is that in Germany I see highway=cycleway  + bicycle=designated. Could someone explain why the bicycle=designated is added because it seems to me that a highway=cyleway implies a bicycle=designated? If I understand this wiki a bicycle=designated is not neccesary for a 237 sign. (round blue shield with bicycle)

Cheers PeeWee

Offline

#6 2013-07-28 21:46:21

rayquaza
Member
From: DE-BW
Registered: 2012-11-18
Posts: 2,007

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

You're right with your confusion wink

The legal situation about cycleways in germany is a bit confusing too, so most people don't even know when it is allowed to ride a bike on a way, when it isn't and when one has to drive on this cycleway (instead of a nearby street). This, accompanied by contradictory definitions on how to tag them even if you know the difference, reflects in unclear tagging as you've noticed it.

(sorry for my bad english)

Offline

#7 2013-07-30 18:08:14

PeeWee32
Member
From: Leusden, NL
Registered: 2010-11-28
Posts: 1,026
Website

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

rayquaza wrote:

You're right with your confusion wink

The legal situation about cycleways in germany is a bit confusing too, so most people don't even know when it is allowed to ride a bike on a way, when it isn't and when one has to drive on this cycleway (instead of a nearby street). This, accompanied by contradictory definitions on how to tag them even if you know the difference, reflects in unclear tagging as you've noticed it.

Yes I understand and JOSM presets do not help either.
e7njvb.jpg
A dedicated cycleway : highway=cycleway
A combined cycleway/footway: highway=path
A dedicated footway: highway=footway


I guess EvanE is right when he writes "Because of this uncertainty people startet to use highway=path together with explicitly
    stating the access rights. "  JOSM could not decide between cycleway and footway so decided to take.... "path" hmm  Does not make sense to me.

I guess the English wiki is quite clear on what a path is.

rayquaza wrote:

(sorry for my bad english)

It's a lot better then my German wink

Offline

#8 2013-07-30 20:45:43

Tordanik
Moderator
From: Germany
Registered: 2008-06-17
Posts: 2,280
Website

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

PeeWee32 wrote:

I've also seen that in Germany people use "path" for cycleway or combined cycleway/footway. I find this very confusing. Why? A path is very oftend used for an unpaved way.

highway=path does not imply an unpaved surface. That's just one of several subjective interpretations people have tacked onto the value later (and it's not universally accepted). By design, "path" combined with explicit access tags was supposed to replace the footway, cycleway and bridleway values entirely.

Those occurences of highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=designated for combined cycleway/footway follow this originally documented intention of the tag. But with said proposal being partially (but not entirely...) rejected, many mappers sticking to the traditional tags, and alternative interpretations emerging over time, there are now several different styles of expressing the same thing.

Could someone explain why the bicycle=designated is added because it seems to me that a highway=cyleway implies a bicycle=designated?

Well, due to all the confusion about what the highway values mean, the only safe solution is to tag surface and access rights explicitly...

Offline

#9 2013-07-30 21:11:02

seichter
Member
Registered: 2011-05-21
Posts: 2,322

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

PeeWee32 wrote:
rayquaza wrote:

You're right with your confusion wink

The legal situation about cycleways in germany is a bit confusing too, so most people don't even know when it is allowed to ride a bike on a way, when it isn't and when one has to drive on this cycleway (instead of a nearby street). This, accompanied by contradictory definitions on how to tag them even if you know the difference, reflects in unclear tagging as you've noticed it.

Yes I understand and JOSM presets do not help either.
http://i41.tinypic.com/e7njvb.jpg
A dedicated cycleway : highway=cycleway
A combined cycleway/footway: highway=path
A dedicated footway: highway=footway


I guess EvanE is right when he writes "Because of this uncertainty people startet to use highway=path together with explicitly
    stating the access rights. "  JOSM could not decide between cycleway and footway so decided to take.... "path" hmm  Does not make sense to me.

I guess the English wiki is quite clear on what a path is.

The problem seems to me (not only in Germany) that there are explicit tags for pedestrian and bicyle only, but ambiguities for dual use. I'm not sure whether the approach used in JOSM preset is that wrong. The first sentence for path is: "A non-specific or shared-use path."
Using path only contradicts the intuitive use of it for unpaved ways outside residential areas.
There is a corresponding disagreement whether to use footway for hiking trails in the wilderness only used by pedestrians.

Offline

#10 2013-07-31 19:13:17

MasiMaster
Member
Registered: 2011-11-22
Posts: 369

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

PeeWee32 wrote:

The other thing I do not understand is that in Germany I see highway=cycleway  + bicycle=designated. Could someone explain why the bicycle=designated is added because it seems to me that a highway=cycleway implies a bicycle=designated?

In Germany there are different cycleways:
1. cycleways with the blue sign, where you have to cycle (by law), instead the parallel road.
2. cycleways without any sign, or with a white painted bicycle on the ground. There you can cycle if you want (cycling on the parallel road is also allowed)

1: highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated
2: highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes

The bicycle=designated(/yes) is added, to differ those both ways.

It is a bit confusing about combined foot- and cycleways. I don't not use path. I choose the best match way. If the way is made for cyclists and suitable, i choose cycleway.

At least, I wonder why we need the implication bicycle=designated? I think it is better to tag the access tags separately from the type of way! This is also the reason why I don't think a path + bicycle=designated is the same as a cycleway. I think a footway is a more specific path, and a cycleway a more specific path (or footway). I know this is not common on OSM, but it would be nice.

Offline

#11 2013-07-31 20:34:25

EvanE
Member
Registered: 2009-11-30
Posts: 5,716

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

MasiMaster wrote:

In Germany there are different cycleways:
1. cycleways with the blue sign, where you have to cycle (by law), instead the parallel road.
2. cycleways without any sign, or with a white painted bicycle on the ground. There you can cycle if you want (cycling on the parallel road is also allowed)

1: highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated
2: highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes

The bicycle=designated(/yes) is added, to differ those both ways.

It is a bit confusing about combined foot- and cycleways. I don't not use path. I choose the best match way. If the way is made for cyclists and suitable, i choose cycleway.

At least, I wonder why we need the implication bicycle=designated? I think it is better to tag the access tags separately from the type of way! This is also the reason why I don't think a path + bicycle=designated is the same as a cycleway. I think a footway is a more specific path, and a cycleway a more specific path (or footway). I know this is not common on OSM, but it would be nice.

A highway=footway/cycleway may be a way intended for walking resp. cycling but may be not marked by a traffic sign (in the current case for germany a blue round sign with bicycle and/or pedestrian).
Tagging footway/cycleway=designated tell others the way is marked with a traffic sign which has some legal implications.

For a cycleway without pedestrian (and for footways without cyclist) highway=cycleway (resp. highway=footway) is the prefered tagging.
With the ambiguity concerning combined cycle- and footways tagging highway=path + bicycle=designated + foot=designated is in widespread use.
With this example some people think, that always using highway=path for ways below roads is a better way expressing things.

Edbert (EvanE)

Offline

#12 2013-08-02 14:50:56

Wolmatinger
Member
Registered: 2013-08-02
Posts: 131

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

MasiMaster wrote:
PeeWee32 wrote:

The other thing I do not understand is that in Germany I see highway=cycleway  + bicycle=designated. Could someone explain why the bicycle=designated is added because it seems to me that a highway=cycleway implies a bicycle=designated?

ACK.

MasiMaster wrote:

In Germany there are different cycleways:

1. ....
2. cycleways without any sign, or with a white painted bicycle on the ground. There you can cycle if you want (cycling on the parallel road is also allowed)

Are these really cycleways? I mean no.

MasiMaster wrote:

1: highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated

Cycleway implies designated (English Wiki). German Wiki differs as often.

MasiMaster wrote:

2: highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes

bicycle=yes is IMHO nonsens. Is often used to mark other ways with a bicycle route. This is not correct.

Last edited by Wolmatinger (2013-08-02 14:51:39)

Offline

#13 2013-08-02 21:29:34

MasiMaster
Member
Registered: 2011-11-22
Posts: 369

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

Wolmatinger wrote:
MasiMaster wrote:

In Germany there are different cycleways:
1. ....
2. cycleways without any sign, or with a white painted bicycle on the ground. There you can cycle if you want (cycling on the parallel road is also allowed)

Are these really cycleways? I mean no.

Do you know "Schutzstreifen"? And there are other cycleways, without a sign (because in germany don't exist a sign for a cycleway without the strict law: you have to cycle there). So sometimes a bicycle painted on the ground. A sidewalk with no sign, but the half of the way paved in red color (cycleway-color in germany), it is a cycleway too (where you can cycle)!


Wolmatinger wrote:
MasiMaster wrote:

1: highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated

Cycleway implies designated (English Wiki). German Wiki differs as often.

I know! But it is better without the implication, because of the different access-rules i explained above.

Wolmatinger wrote:
MasiMaster wrote:

2: highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes

bicycle=yes is IMHO nonsens. Is often used to mark other ways with a bicycle route. This is not correct.

It is not nonsens! With the implication we need it... The bicycle=yes overwrite the designated to set the correct access tag. This is why I say: the implication is nonsense!

Last edited by MasiMaster (2013-08-02 21:32:31)

Offline

#14 2013-08-02 23:13:15

Wolmatinger
Member
Registered: 2013-08-02
Posts: 131

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

MasiMaster wrote:
Wolmatinger wrote:
MasiMaster wrote:

In Germany there are different cycleways:
1. ....
2. cycleways without any sign, or with a white painted bicycle on the ground. There you can cycle if you want (cycling on the parallel road is also allowed)

Are these really cycleways? I mean no.

Do you know "Schutzstreifen"? And there are other cycleways, without a sign (because in germany don't exist a sign for a cycleway without the strict law: you have to cycle there). So sometimes a bicycle painted on the ground. A sidewalk with no sign, but the half of the way paved in red color (cycleway-color in germany), it is a cycleway too (where you can cycle)!

Cycleway are always ways with a sign (237, 240, 241, 244). All the others are track, path ...

Schutzstreifen sind ebensowenig als cycleway zu sehen:

Auszug aus StVO:
Wer ein Fahrzeug führt, darf auf der Fahrbahn durch Leitlinien
markierte Schutzstreifen für den Radverkehr nur bei Bedarf
überfahren. Der Radverkehr darf dabei nicht gefährdet
werden.

Andere können diese benutzen. Der Radfahrer kann muss aber nicht. Die Nicht-Gefährdung gilt gem. §1 auch für andere Straßen/Wege. Der einzige Vorteil, den ein Radler davon hat, ist dass da Parkverbot herrscht (siehe 3.).

3.  Wer ein Fahrzeug führt, darf auf durch Leitlinien markierten
Schutzstreifen für den Radverkehr nicht parken.


Wolmatinger wrote:
MasiMaster wrote:

1: highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated

Cycleway implies designated (English Wiki). German Wiki differs as often.

I know! But it is better without the implication, because of the different access-rules i explained above.

Then you should change the English Wiki.

Wolmatinger wrote:
MasiMaster wrote:

2: highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes

bicycle=yes is IMHO nonsens. Is often used to mark other ways with a bicycle route. This is not correct.

It is not nonsens! With the implication we need it... The bicycle=yes overwrite the designated to set the correct access tag. This is why I say: the implication is nonsense!

Why is highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes correcter than highway=cycleway? I don't understand. 

Sorry for some text in German.

Last edited by Wolmatinger (2013-08-03 07:06:17)

Offline

#15 2013-08-03 07:17:24

Wolmatinger
Member
Registered: 2013-08-02
Posts: 131

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

bicycle=yes:
Is used sometimes to say that the tagging of the way is o.k.
All the ways of a bicycle route has this tag.
This kind of tagging is false.

I don't understand, why experienced mappers offers all the tagging possibilities for e.g. cyleways instead of prefering one, to reduce the chaos in OSM.

Last edited by Wolmatinger (2013-08-03 07:19:10)

Offline

#16 2013-08-03 08:15:46

PeeWee32
Member
From: Leusden, NL
Registered: 2010-11-28
Posts: 1,026
Website

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

We seem to have 2 discussions going.

1. What's the best way to tag a combined cycleway/footway?
2. Why and when to add a bicycle=yes/designated  to a highway=cycleway

What's the best way to tag a combined cycleway/footway?

Tordanik wrote:
PeeWee32 wrote:

I've also seen that in Germany people use "path" for cycleway or combined cycleway/footway. I find this very confusing. Why? A path is very oftend used for an unpaved way.

highway=path does not imply an unpaved surface. That's just one of several subjective interpretations people have tacked onto the value later (and it's not universally accepted). By design, "path" combined with explicit access tags was supposed to replace the footway, cycleway and bridleway values entirely.

Those occurences of highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=designated for combined cycleway/footway follow this originally documented intention of the tag. But with said proposal being partially (but not entirely...) rejected, many mappers sticking to the traditional tags, and alternative interpretations emerging over time, there are now several different styles of expressing the same thing.

I aggree that a path does not mean that it is unpaved but.... I think most routers will interpret this as unpaved when there is no surface tag. The same goes for cycleway. Most routers will interpret a cycleway without surface tag as paved. So in order to keep things as simple as possible I still suggest to tags these combined cycleway/footway as

A: highway=cycleway + foot=designated (or)
B: highway=footway + bicycle=designated

I prefer A because in many countries it is OK to walk on cycleways where it is not OK to cycle on footways. As a foreigner I don't know if it is allowed to walk on a cycleway in Germany (but I have seen many do it wink )  If the designated tag is missing I think A will give the best results in most routers/renderers.

seichter wrote:

The problem seems to me (not only in Germany) that there are explicit tags for pedestrian and bicyle only, but ambiguities for dual use. I'm not sure whether the approach used in JOSM preset is that wrong. The first sentence for path is: "A non-specific or shared-use path."
Using path only contradicts the intuitive use of it for unpaved ways outside residential areas.
There is a corresponding disagreement whether to use footway for hiking trails in the wilderness only used by pedestrians.

I aggree that eg a : highway=path + bicycle=designated + foot=designated + surface=asphalt  is not "completely wrong" for a normal combined cycleway/footway but... I find it  confusing and not neccesary. If we would use the simpeler:  highway=cycleway + foot=designated
most routers/renderers will interpret this OK (even without the surface tag)


Why and when to add a bicycle=yes/designated  to a highway=cycleway

MasiMaster wrote:

In Germany there are different cycleways:
1. cycleways with the blue sign, where you have to cycle (by law), instead the parallel road.
2. cycleways without any sign, or with a white painted bicycle on the ground. There you can cycle if you want (cycling on the parallel road is also allowed)

1: highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated
2: highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes

The bicycle=designated(/yes) is added, to differ those both ways.

I do not remember seeing option 2 in Germany (how do I recognise a cycleway without a sign?)  but... i guess in NL we have more or less the same situation. We have 3 types of cycleways:

1 cycleway were you may cycle but you do not have to. In case there is a parralel road you may also use this. Moped and mofa are not allowed on this cycleway.
200px-Nederlands_verkeersbord_G13.svg.png
Common tagging: highway=cycleway + mofa=no ( which implies a Moped = no). Parallel road does not need extra tagging or maybe just a bicycle=yes

2 cycleway that has to be used.  In case there is a parralel road you may NOT use this. Moped is not allowed but mofa is allowed on this cycleway.
200px-Nederlands_verkeersbord_G11.svg.png
Common tagging: highway=cycleway + moped=no ( which implies a Moped = no). Parallel road gets a bicycle=no

3 Combined cycleway for bicycles and moped. In case there is a parralel road you may NOT use this. This goes for bicycles, mofas and mopeds.
200px-Nederlands_verkeersbord_G12a.svg.png
Common tagging: highway=cycleway + moped=designated ( which implies a Mofa=designated). Parallel road gets a bicycle=no (and a moped=no but this is very often forgotten because we have more cycling mappers then moped-mappers wink )

Here's an example of all these three types of cycleways om a mapnik map. (wait a few seconds till the ways show up. clicking the way will give you OSM tagging)

As you can see there is no= bicycle=yes or a bicycle=designated on a highway=cycleway.

MasiMaster wrote:

1: highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated
2: highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes

The bicycle=designated(/yes) is added, to differ those both ways.

If a legal status means different access tags I would say.. OK map the acces tags but if in practice there is no difference between the 2 then why add the bicycle=yes/designated tag? Which renderer or router uses this information? This still seems redundant to me.

I am not in favour off mapping legal issues in OSM unless these have a practical use in  rendering/routing etc.

Are there any practical differences between the 2?

Last edited by PeeWee32 (2013-08-03 08:19:59)

Offline

#17 2013-08-03 08:25:54

rayquaza
Member
From: DE-BW
Registered: 2012-11-18
Posts: 2,007

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

PeeWee32 wrote:

As a foreigner I don't know if it is allowed to walk on a cycleway in Germany (but I have seen many do it wink )

It isn't (except where explictly allowed or to cross it (like a regular street)).

Offline

#18 2013-08-03 09:47:10

PeeWee32
Member
From: Leusden, NL
Registered: 2010-11-28
Posts: 1,026
Website

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

rayquaza wrote:
PeeWee32 wrote:

As a foreigner I don't know if it is allowed to walk on a cycleway in Germany (but I have seen many do it wink )

It isn't (except where explictly allowed or to cross it (like a regular street)).

I could have guessed since you have combined cycleways/footways.  In NL it is allowed to walk on cycleways unless there is a sidewalk/footway next to it.  Goes to show that we're a long way from a uniform Europe wink

Offline

#19 2013-08-03 16:58:31

MasiMaster
Member
Registered: 2011-11-22
Posts: 369

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

PeeWee32 wrote:

Why and when to add a bicycle=yes/designated  to a highway=cycleway

MasiMaster wrote:

In Germany there are different cycleways:
1. cycleways with the blue sign, where you have to cycle (by law), instead the parallel road.
2. cycleways without any sign, or with a white painted bicycle on the ground. There you can cycle if you want (cycling on the parallel road is also allowed)

1: highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated
2: highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes

The bicycle=designated(/yes) is added, to differ those both ways.

I do not remember seeing option 2 in Germany (how do I recognise a cycleway without a sign?)  but... i guess in NL we have more or less the same situation.

Yes, that is a problem in Germany. In past all cycleways had the blue circle sign. Now we have also ways without the sign. But we don't have any other sign, only the painted bicycle symbol or a colored part on a footway.

PeeWee32 wrote:

We have 3 types of cycleways:
1 cycleway were you may cycle but you do not have to. In case there is a parralel road you may also use this. Moped and mofa are not allowed on this cycleway.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … 13.svg.png
Common tagging: highway=cycleway + mofa=no ( which implies a Moped = no). Parallel road does not need extra tagging or maybe just a bicycle=yes

2 cycleway that has to be used.  In case there is a parallel road you may NOT use this. Moped is not allowed but mofa is allowed on this cycleway.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … 11.svg.png
Common tagging: highway=cycleway + moped=no ( which implies a Moped = no). Parallel road gets a bicycle=no

3 Combined cycleway for bicycles and moped. In case there is a parallel road you may NOT use this. This goes for bicycles, mofas and mopeds.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … 2a.svg.png
Common tagging: highway=cycleway + moped=designated ( which implies a Mofa=designated). Parallel road gets a bicycle=no (and a moped=no but this is very often forgotten because we have more cycling mappers then moped-mappers wink )

Are there any practical differences between the 2?

In Germany there are some options, that you can cycle on the road even if there is a sign like at your No. 2:
- You can choose to cross a junction on road or cycleway.
- If the cycleway is impassible.
- If you have a bicycle which is more wide then normal.
- etc

I think this is similar in other countries!? So in Germany it is wrong to tag the road with bicycle=no! Bicycle=no is only tagged at 120px-Zeichen_254.svg.png

To tag something at the road would be nice for routers, but bicycle=no is wrong by my mind.

I think it is better, to separate the highway tag from integrated access tags. If we use "designated" for a hard restricted way like No.2, and "yes" for a way where cycling is allowed (No.1) we can connect the sign with access tags and the law together and reverse.

I know that in France there are a quadratic blue sign is similar to your example from No. 1

Offline

#20 2013-08-05 15:33:05

PeeWee32
Member
From: Leusden, NL
Registered: 2010-11-28
Posts: 1,026
Website

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

MasiMaster wrote:

Yes, that is a problem in Germany. In past all cycleways had the blue circle sign. Now we have also ways without the sign. But we don't have any other sign, only the painted bicycle symbol or a colored part on a footway.

But still.... what is the practical difference between the two? different acces tags?  If not... then why map them differntely? Only because one has a blue sign and the other does not?  I do not think that this is a good idea. OSM is international so I think it is a good idea to stay away form country specific tagging unless there is a very good reason to do so.

MasiMaster wrote:

In Germany there are some options, that you can cycle on the road even if there is a sign like at your No. 2:
- You can choose to cross a junction on road or cycleway.
- If the cycleway is impassible.
- If you have a bicycle which is more wide then normal.
- etc

I think this is similar in other countries!? So in Germany it is wrong to tag the road with bicycle=no! Bicycle=no is only tagged at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/ … 54.svg.png

To tag something at the road would be nice for routers, but bicycle=no is wrong by my mind.

I disaggree completely. Why are only roads with this sign tagged as bicycle=no when in practice there are also other roads that are forbidden for cyclist. In NL we have more or less the same situation. Not all roads that are forbidden for cyclists have this sign (wide velomobiles e.g. are allowed on the road unless there is this bicycle-forbidden sign) but that does not mean we do not tag others roads with bicyle=no. How should a router/renderer tell the difference if we don't tag this info in OSM. I know... you could say that a road is forbidden for cyclist if there is a cycleway with bicycle=designated next to it ..but ...how far away from the road is this then? We can not have all routers/renderers guess how far from each others the road and cycleway have to be so to keep things simple (and universal)  we just add a bicyle=no to all roads where  a bicycle is forbidden. I hope most Germans will do the same.

NB for special wide  bicycles (like velomobiles) a new tag could be used... something like= "Velomobile=yes/no".

Offline

#21 2013-08-05 17:24:03

EvanE
Member
Registered: 2009-11-30
Posts: 5,716

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

PeeWee32 wrote:
MasiMaster wrote:

Yes, that is a problem in Germany. In past all cycleways had the blue circle sign. Now we have also ways without the sign. But we don't have any other sign, only the painted bicycle symbol or a colored part on a footway.

But still.... what is the practical difference between the two? different acces tags?  If not... then why map them differntely? Only because one has a blue sign and the other does not?  I do not think that this is a good idea. OSM is international so I think it is a good idea to stay away form country specific tagging unless there is a very good reason to do so.

  -  bicycle=yes             =>  a cyclist is allowed to use this way
                                         e.g. a shared use way
  -  bicycle=designated  =>  the way is marked with a traffic sign.
                                         a cyclist is legally obligated to use this way
                                         others are not allowed to use this way
                                         (if not signd explicitly otherwise)

I think this difference exists in many countries, if they have cycleways at all.
The tagging is international, but legal implication might slightly vary by country.


PeeWee32 wrote:
MasiMaster wrote:

I think this is similar in other countries!? So in Germany it is wrong to tag the road with bicycle=no! Bicycle=no is only tagged at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/ … 54.svg.png

To tag something at the road would be nice for routers, but bicycle=no is wrong by my mind.

I disaggree completely. Why are only roads with this sign tagged as bicycle=no when in practice there are also other roads that are forbidden for cyclist. ... How should a router/renderer tell the difference if we don't tag this info in OSM. I know... you could say that a road is forbidden for cyclist if there is a cycleway with bicycle=designated next to it ..but ...how far away from the road is this then? We can not have all routers/renderers guess how far from each others the road and cycleway have to be so to keep things simple (and universal)  we just add a bicyle=no to all roads where  a bicycle is forbidden. I hope most Germans will do the same.

bicycle=no, expresses never to use this road with a bicyle.
To tagg bicycle=no on every road with an adjactend cycleway would be wrong. There are occasions where you must / are allowed use the road instead the cycleway:
  -  the cycleway is impassable (snow, debris, obstacles, construction, ...)
  -  the cycleway does not lead to your destination
     (e.g. a crossing is not reachable from the cycleway)
  -  a group of cyclist is allowed to use the road instead of the cycleway
     (this might depend on loacl legislation)
  -  ...

If you tagg a road with bicycle=no you are (under any circumstances) not allowed to use this road with a bicycle. But this is perfectly wrong if the road ist not marked with a traffic sign stating "never use a bicycle".
Please don't try to urge german Mapper to use your wrong NL tagging practice.

PS: There sould be no problems with router, for they should allways prefere cycleways. No need to look for a nearby road.

Edbert (EvanE)

Offline

#22 2013-08-05 17:40:53

chris66
Member
From: Germany
Registered: 2009-05-24
Posts: 8,749

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

@EvanE: +1

One disadvantage of the bicycle=no Tagging is that it can produce subtile errors like this one:

http://www.openrouteservice.org/index.p … ways=false

Here the bicycle=no on the main road prevents the ability for cyclists to cross the road at this point.

Chris


Internettechnik aus Nordkorea: Demnächst auch in der EU.

Offline

#23 2013-08-05 20:23:42

PeeWee32
Member
From: Leusden, NL
Registered: 2010-11-28
Posts: 1,026
Website

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

EvanE wrote:

If you tagg a road with bicycle=no you are (under any circumstances) not allowed to use this road with a bicycle. But this is perfectly wrong if the road ist not marked with a traffic sign stating "never use a bicycle".
Please don't try to urge german Mapper to use your wrong NL tagging practice.

Well ...thanks for clearing this. I thought that in Germany (like in NL) there was a law that forbids cyclist to ride their bicyle on this road when there is a cycleway (blue shield with bicycle) next to the road (in all situations) . If I understand you correctly it is still allowed to cycle these roads (in some suituations) . In that case ofcourse a bicycle=no would be wrong although one might argue about  what is the best tagging. Tagging the mayority of the situatioins versus all possible exeptions .  All I am saying is that IF it is not allowed to cycle a road just add a bicyle=no so no router/renderer will make a mistake.  And .... I am not urging you to use NL tagging practice (which is not so wrong for our situation wink  ) . I am just trying to understand German mapping practice (and why it is confusing when it comes to cycleways)

EvanE wrote:

PS: There sould be no problems with router, for they should allways prefere cycleways. No need to look for a nearby road.

Sorry but I do not agree. If I ask a router to serve me the shortest possible route I still l hope it will direct me over roads that are allowed cycling on. Not just cycleways.

chris66 wrote:

@EvanE: +1

One disadvantage of the bicycle=no Tagging is that it can produce subtile errors like this one:

http://www.openrouteservice.org/index.p … ways=false

Here the bicycle=no on the main road prevents the ability for cyclists to cross the road at this point.

Chris

I'm not familiair wit this situations but.... the routing would have been the same even if the Raifaissenstrasse has a "bicycle forbidden" sign.  The problem here seems to be a mapping error which seems to fail to connect the "Moorweg" and "An der Brucke" in such a way that routing goes OK.  If the  Bing image is correct i would have used 2 seperate ways connecting these 2 roads. A bicycle=no on the Raifaissenstrasse would in that case not interfere routing.

Offline

#24 2013-08-05 20:49:06

rayquaza
Member
From: DE-BW
Registered: 2012-11-18
Posts: 2,007

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

PeeWee32 wrote:
EvanE wrote:

If you tagg a road with bicycle=no you are (under any circumstances) not allowed to use this road with a bicycle. But this is perfectly wrong if the road ist not marked with a traffic sign stating "never use a bicycle".

Well ...thanks for clearing this. I thought that in Germany (like in NL) there was a law that forbids cyclist to ride their bicyle on this road when there is a cycleway (blue shield with bicycle) next to the road (in all situations). If I understand you correctly it is still allowed to cycle these roads (in some suituations) . In that case ofcourse a bicycle=no would be wrong

You did understand correctly. I think the biggest problem with cycleway-tagging in germany is that most people don't know those differences. So even if there would be an clear definition on how to tag them, mappers would also have to learn to tell these. Also any definition about this would either make more than 50% of the cycleways in germany tagged wrongly or required an additional tag (but maybe both of them would be better than the current situation).

PeeWee32 wrote:
EvanE wrote:

PS: There sould be no problems with router, for they should allways prefere cycleways. No need to look for a nearby road.

Sorry but I do not agree. If I ask a router to serve me the shortest possible route I still l hope it will direct me over roads that are allowed cycling on. Not just cycleways.

Besides that, there are people out there who want to avoid suchs streets, where they would have to use a Segregated cycle facility (Radverkehtsanlage) (but Cycleways without an nearby street would be acceptable to some of them).

Offline

#25 2013-08-05 21:01:09

EvanE
Member
Registered: 2009-11-30
Posts: 5,716

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

PeeWee32 wrote:
chris66 wrote:

One disadvantage of the bicycle=no Tagging is that it can produce subtile errors like this one:
http://www.openrouteservice.org/index.p … ways=false
Here the bicycle=no on the main road prevents the ability for cyclists to cross the road at this point.

I'm not familiair wit this situations but.... the routing would have been the same even if the Raifaissenstrasse has a "bicycle forbidden" sign.  The problem here seems to be a mapping error which seems to fail to connect the "Moorweg" and "An der Brucke" in such a way that routing goes OK.  If the  Bing image is correct i would have used 2 seperate ways connecting these 2 roads. A bicycle=no on the Raifaissenstrasse would in that case not interfere routing.

In this example one might have mapped it in a simpler way, wich connects "Moorweg" and "An der Brucke" directly.
But the problem of two crossing with a small offset remains and is not uncommon in reality and our data, since we have good aerial imagery.

Edbert (EvanE)

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB