You are not logged in.

Announcement

*** NOTICE: forum.openstreetmap.org is being retired. Please request a category for your community in the new ones as soon as possible using this process, which will allow you to propose your community moderators.
Please create new topics on the new site at community.openstreetmap.org. We expect the migration of data will take a few weeks, you can follow its progress here.***

#26 2013-08-05 22:31:15

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

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

rayquaza wrote:
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

I think the biggest problem with cycleway-tagging in germany is that most people don't know those differences.

BTW: This is another argument for separate the access tag from cycleway: a mapper can add a cycleway and if (s)he know the sign/law, (s)he can also add bicycle=*. If not, the next mapper can add this tag.


If I ride a special bike, in NL all bicycle=no tagging on road is wrong. It is better to introduce a new tag! (...instead use the same tag for different sign/law.)

Tagging the nearby road additional to the cycleway would be nice for routers: If I don't like to cycle on a cycleway, i can ignore those roads with new bicycle tagging.

Offline

#27 2013-08-06 07:53:49

PeeWee32
Member
From: Leusden, NL
Registered: 2010-11-28
Posts: 1,302
Website

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

rayquaza wrote:

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).

I guess you are right and I also think that an extra tag could solve this issue. I understand there are 2 type of roads thatt are forbidden for cyclist
1 road with a bicyle-forbidden sign (in all situations)
2 roads that ar forbidden for most situations except some ... (eg a road next to a cycleway that is compulsary.)

Current situation in Germany :
Number 1 gets a bicycle=no
Number 2 does not

The current problem with bicycle routing is that most routers will not always avoid number 2 for ordinary bicycles. Whenever I cycle in Germany I use a Garmin device with an OSM based map. Very often the route goes over a road (number 2) on which I am not allowed to cycle. Here is an example (I hope it is a good example because I am not familiar over there)

If a bicycle=no would have been added, routing would be OK ... but...I now understand this is "not done" in Germany. I still wonder how I should tag roads/cycleways in Germany in such a way that I will not be sent on roads that do not allow (ordinary) bicycles.

I like rayquaza's idea to give number2 a bicycle=no and in addition add a new tag so that we can tell the diffence between the 2 type of roads.  How about something like "special-bicycle=yes" .  If you have any other suggestion  to improve bicycle routing please tell.

Offline

#28 2013-08-06 08:32:51

chris66
Member
From: Germany
Registered: 2009-05-24
Posts: 10,107

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

PeeWee32 wrote:

If you have any other suggestion  to improve bicycle routing please tell.

You can eventually use bicycle=avoid or bicycle=limited for the type-2 road.
Both tags are used ca. 100 times in the OSM DB.


Mapper aus dem Münsterland.

Offline

#29 2013-08-06 09:24:50

PeeWee32
Member
From: Leusden, NL
Registered: 2010-11-28
Posts: 1,302
Website

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

MasiMaster wrote:

If I ride a special bike, in NL all bicycle=no tagging on road is wrong. It is better to introduce a new tag! (...instead use the same tag for different sign/law.)

You are right. In NL we have more or less the same situation as in DE. I aggree that although it is quite normal to add a bicycle=no on a number2 road in NL it is not 100% right because of the special bikes.  But still.... I think it is better then the absence of the bicycle=no because in that case routing will not be perfect for normal bikes and  special bikes. That's why I also think OSM is better of with a new tag to separate the 2 types.

NB
I have a special bike (Velomobile) which allows me to ride the number2 typ roads (at least in NL). Nevertheless I do not really mind that number2 type roads are tagged with a bicycle=no because it is not always safe to ride these with a special bike. Many car drivers do no know this and think I am breaking the rule.  Besides... my special bike has 3 wheels so it is ... definitly not a bicycle wink

Offline

#30 2013-08-06 10:40:19

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

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

PeeWee32 wrote:

I like rayquaza's idea to give number2 a bicycle=no and in addition add a new tag so that we can tell the diffence between the 2 type of roads.  How about something like "special-bicycle=yes" .  If you have any other suggestion  to improve bicycle routing please tell.

I not meant to use bicycle=no with an other tag, but maybe something like bicycle=if_you_cant_get_to_the_intersection_via_a_forced_cycleway_or_if_the_cycleway_is_unusable (well, maybe with a shorter value) for the road and forced_to_use_this_cycleway=yes (again: maybe with a shorter key) for the cycleway. I'm currently using "de:rwbp"=yes for the latter (RWBP stands for "Radwegbenutzungspflicht", translated something like "legal obligation to use a cycleway").

Routers could first try to find a route with using all of those ways and if they found a route over the street check if nearly the same route (maybe turning on the same crossing with an maximum detour of 10% and without using another road more than 20m?) is possible via a cycleway (also checking the cycleway for i.e. width=* to check if it's usable for this specific vehicle).

Offline

#31 2013-08-06 21:15:41

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

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

PeeWee32 wrote:
MasiMaster wrote:

If I ride a special bike, in NL all bicycle=no tagging on road is wrong. It is better to introduce a new tag! (...instead use the same tag for different sign/law.)

You are right. In NL we have more or less the same situation as in DE. I aggree that although it is quite normal to add a bicycle=no on a number2 road in NL it is not 100% right because of the special bikes.  But still.... I think it is better then the absence of the bicycle=no because in that case routing will not be perfect for normal bikes and  special bikes. That's why I also think OSM is better of with a new tag to separate the 2 types.

It's not always the type of bicycle, often there is a intersection which you can't reach without to use the road. (this also said EvanE and rayquaza)

chris66 wrote:
PeeWee32 wrote:

If you have any other suggestion  to improve bicycle routing please tell.

You can eventually use bicycle=avoid or bicycle=limited for the type-2 road.
Both tags are used ca. 100 times in the OSM DB.

+1

PeeWee32 wrote:

I like rayquaza's idea to give number2 a bicycle=no and in addition add a new tag so that we can tell the diffence between the 2 type of roads.  How about something like "special-bicycle=yes" .  If you have any other suggestion  to improve bicycle routing please tell.

bicycle=no is tagging for router. Better to use i.e. bicycle=avoid, and if this tagging is common, router will use it too.

rayquaza wrote:

forced_to_use_this_cycleway=yes (again: maybe with a shorter key) for the cycleway

this tag is bicycle=designated smile

Offline

#32 2013-08-07 07:18:11

PeeWee32
Member
From: Leusden, NL
Registered: 2010-11-28
Posts: 1,302
Website

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

rayquaza wrote:
PeeWee32 wrote:

I like rayquaza's idea to give number2 a bicycle=no and in addition add a new tag so that we can tell the diffence between the 2 type of roads.  How about something like "special-bicycle=yes" .  If you have any other suggestion  to improve bicycle routing please tell.

I not meant to use bicycle=no with an other tag, but maybe something like bicycle=if_you_cant_get_to_the_intersection_via_a_forced_cycleway_or_if_the_cycleway_is_unusable (well, maybe with a shorter value) for the road and forced_to_use_this_cycleway=yes (again: maybe with a shorter key) for the cycleway. I'm currently using "de:rwbp"=yes for the latter (RWBP stands for "Radwegbenutzungspflicht", translated something like "legal obligation to use a cycleway").

Thanks. I also think 1 tag is better then adding a new one. I understand you use the rwpb when there is no common tagging but I prefer a more international tagging because routers/renderers already have enough problems with different taggins scheme's between countries. Let's see if we can find a better one.

rayquaza wrote:

Routers could first try to find a route with using all of those ways and if they found a route over the street check if nearly the same route (maybe turning on the same crossing with an maximum detour of 10% and without using another road more than 20m?) is possible via a cycleway (also checking the cycleway for i.e. width=* to check if it's usable for this specific vehicle).

+1 . All we need to do is make sure we use the right tagging then routers will come up with the best route wink

Offline

#33 2013-08-07 07:18:33

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

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

MasiMaster wrote:
rayquaza wrote:

forced_to_use_this_cycleway=yes (again: maybe with a shorter key) for the cycleway

this tag is bicycle=designated smile

This tag is contrary to your own wiki page.

In Germany there are ways with sign 240/241 more or less parallel to a road and the same rights of way as the road. These ways you have to use.

Then there are ways across country with these signs, which only say that there are allowed bikes and foot only. In narrower sense this signs are incorrect by-law.
Fact is that these sign are there and therefore you must distinguish the tagging of the ways.
For ways which you have to use I tag: cycleway=track/lane + bicycle/foot=official + ..., the other: highway=path + bicycle/foot=designated.
There are other possible taggings, but you should use only one IMHO. Necessary is an agreement which to use, but this is the problem.

Last edited by Wolmatinger (2013-08-07 10:40:43)

Offline

#34 2013-08-07 07:42:40

PeeWee32
Member
From: Leusden, NL
Registered: 2010-11-28
Posts: 1,302
Website

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

MasiMaster wrote:
PeeWee32 wrote:
MasiMaster wrote:

If I ride a special bike, in NL all bicycle=no tagging on road is wrong. It is better to introduce a new tag! (...instead use the same tag for different sign/law.)

You are right. In NL we have more or less the same situation as in DE. I aggree that although it is quite normal to add a bicycle=no on a number2 road in NL it is not 100% right because of the special bikes.  But still.... I think it is better then the absence of the bicycle=no because in that case routing will not be perfect for normal bikes and  special bikes. That's why I also think OSM is better of with a new tag to separate the 2 types.

It's not always the type of bicycle, often there is a intersection which you can't reach without to use the road. (this also said EvanE and rayquaza)

Ok thanks. I just wonder... how can you tell which part of this road is OK to use in that case? Are there any signs telling  it is OK to use it?  Can someone give an example (google streetviewe maybe?)

If there is a smal part of the road that can be used for a bicycle wouldn't  it be better to give only  this part a "bicycle=yes"?

MasiMaster wrote:
chris66 wrote:
PeeWee32 wrote:

If you have any other suggestion  to improve bicycle routing please tell.

You can eventually use bicycle=avoid or bicycle=limited for the type-2 road.
Both tags are used ca. 100 times in the OSM DB.

+1

+1 but I do not know which is better.  I can only find this documentation on Avoid but that does not seem to be what we are looking for. It looks very subjective to me. More opinions on what tag to use?

MasiMaster wrote:
PeeWee32 wrote:

I like rayquaza's idea to give number2 a bicycle=no and in addition add a new tag so that we can tell the diffence between the 2 type of roads.  How about something like "special-bicycle=yes" .  If you have any other suggestion  to improve bicycle routing please tell.

bicycle=no is tagging for router.

That depends on the definition one uses for a bicycle wink.

MasiMaster wrote:

Better to use i.e. bicycle=avoid, and if this tagging is common, router will use it too.

+1 although I am not convinced Avoid is the right tag.

Offline

#35 2013-08-07 10:17:39

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

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

PeeWee32 wrote:

Ok thanks. I just wonder... how can you tell which part of this road is OK to use in that case? Are there any signs telling  it is OK to use it?  Can someone give an example (google streetviewe maybe?)

No, there are no signs telling you this (maybe that's why most people don't know about this).

An example: The highway=track wich goes from this intersection to the northeast. It has an combined cycle- and footway sign at this intersection, but as you can see on the map it is not "strassenbegleitend" ("along the street"?). However, if you approach this intersection in reality you can't see this (except you're just comming from the north wink ).

Another example where one has to use the cycleway, even though it is complete nonsense: At this roundabout (driving from the south to the north) one has to take the cycleway on the left(!), continue on it to the first exit and enter the roundabout there (from Dietmar-Hopp-Strasse). Again you can't see that the cycleway isn't going to your exit, but that doesn't matter here, since you can still leave the cycleway in time.

And an third example: The Track on the west of this intersection. It isn't signed as an cycleway but we consider it so for this example (such intersections with an cycleway instead of the track exist, but I don't know exactly where). If you want to turn into the residential to the east you would be allowed to use the road. But again, you can't see this from where you can enter the cycleway (oh, and besides, that would mean the whole road would be bicycle=yes, but one would still have to take the cycleway if he want's to use it completly).

PeeWee32 wrote:

If there is a smal part of the road that can be used for a bicycle wouldn't  it be better to give only  this part a "bicycle=yes"?

The problem is that it's nearly impossible to notice all of them…

Offline

#36 2013-08-07 10:53:17

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

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

PeeWee32 wrote:

If there is a smal part of the road that can be used for a bicycle wouldn't  it be better to give only  this part a "bicycle=yes"?

Why?
If there is no cycleway (benutzungspflichtig) then you can use the road. There is no biycyle=yes necessary.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_ … strictions

Offline

#37 2013-08-07 22:52:29

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

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

PeeWee32 wrote:

Ok thanks. I just wonder... how can you tell which part of this road is OK to use in that case? Are there any signs telling  it is OK to use it?  Can someone give an example (google streetviewe maybe?)

If there is a smal part of the road that can be used for a bicycle wouldn't  it be better to give only  this part a "bicycle=yes"?

No, there are no signs. An Example are here:
http://openrouteservice.org/index.php?s … ways=false
The cycleway has no connection to the intersection from the secondary street. So you have to leave the cycleway before and turn left like cars do.

An other example is this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/d … kt.svg.png
If a cyclists want turn left, he always can choose the direct way over the road, or use the cycleway straight over the crossing and then use the other cycleway (or push the bike over the footway) if the traffic light tell green.

bicycle=yes don't work, because a cyclist can turn left to a highway=service + service=driveway (the red footway is a not segregated cycle- & footway):
http://openrouteservice.org/index.php?s … ways=false
So if you want to tag some parts with bicycle=yes, you have to tag most parts of roads!

Furthermore, the bicycle=yes is redundant, because a normal road allows to cycle.

Last edited by MasiMaster (2013-08-07 22:55:46)

Offline

#38 2013-08-08 07:59:07

PeeWee32
Member
From: Leusden, NL
Registered: 2010-11-28
Posts: 1,302
Website

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

Thanks Masimaster and Rayquaza for the examples. Althought Rayquaza's examples all seem te be tracks I still get the picture. I've aslo seen that Wolmatinger has added some FIXME's  on these tracks so maybe a local mapper could fix this.

MasiMaster wrote:

An other example is this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/d … kt.svg.png
If a cyclists want turn left, he always can choose the direct way over the road, or use the cycleway straight over the crossing and then use the other cycleway (or push the bike over the footway) if the traffic light tell green.

I did not know this. This will make my cycling trips in Germany a bit faster wink

MasiMaster wrote:

bicycle=yes don't work, because a cyclist can turn left to a highway=service + service=driveway (the red footway is a not segregated cycle- & footway):
http://openrouteservice.org/index.php?s … ways=false
So if you want to tag some parts with bicycle=yes, you have to tag most parts of roads!

Furthermore, the bicycle=yes is redundant, because a normal road allows to cycle.

I think you are right. I also think this is what Wolmatiger means. I guess I was thinking of roads next to compulsary cycleway. If those roads would get a bicycle=avoid (tag to be discussed) for those parts were a policeman could give you a fine you could add a bicycle=yes just for the parts of the road were  it is OK to use a bike. You could still say it is redundant but maybe you can compare it to the next situation. In NL many cycleways are oneway and are also tagged as oneway=yes. For this reason some mappers use a oneway=no for cycleways that can be used in 2 directions. Just to make sure no one accidentely maps these as oneway. This oneway=no is also redundant but prevents athoher mappers from accedentaly mapping these as oneway.  Sometimes it is just a little part of the cycleway that is 2-way but if it was mapped as oneway it would be wrong and also affect bicycle routing.

So what do you think of the next conclusion?
1. All roads with a "cycling forbidden" sign get a bicyle=no
2. All (parts) of a road next to a compulsary cycleway (blue sign) were you could get a fine by a policeman when riding a normal bicycle get a bicyle=avoid (tag to be discussed)

This would improve bicycle routing I think. What do you think? Could this work in Germany  or am I fighting windmills wink ?

Offline

#39 2013-08-08 08:27:21

abrensch
Member
Registered: 2013-01-07
Posts: 596

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

rayquaza wrote:

Routers could first try to find a route with using all of those ways and if they found a route over the street check if nearly the same route (maybe turning on the same crossing with an maximum detour of 10% and without using another road more than 20m?) is possible via a cycleway (also checking the cycleway for i.e. width=* to check if it's usable for this specific vehicle).

This would be a "non-local" part of a routers cost function and all the tagging you need for that is already there, but this is nearly impossible to implement and not a single router is doing stuff like that.

This is why I share the opinion that an extension of the tagging scheme is neccesary to allow correct routing via local cost functions.

PeeWee32 wrote:

So what do you think of the next conclusion?
1. All roads with a "cycling forbidden" sign get a bicyle=no

No extension needed here. Remind that a road with cycling not allowed does not neccesarily need bicyle=no. motorroad=yes implies bicyle=no, and check against bicyle=dismount.

2. [All (parts) of] a road next to a compulsary cycleway (blue sign) were you could get a fine by a policeman when riding a normal bicycle get a bicyle=avoid (tag to be discussed)

+1 for that

Could this work in Germany  or am I fighting windmills wink ?

The windmills you are fighting is the "All (parts)" remark. It should be made clear that this is not a strict access rule and that it is NOT necceary to fiddle with the "edge-issues" around crossings. If a router has no other choice than routing through a 5 Meter section of bicycle=avoid than he should just do it.

Offline

#40 2013-08-09 14:05:37

PeeWee32
Member
From: Leusden, NL
Registered: 2010-11-28
Posts: 1,302
Website

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

abrensch wrote:
rayquaza wrote:

Routers could first try to find a route with using all of those ways and if they found a route over the street check if nearly the same route (maybe turning on the same crossing with an maximum detour of 10% and without using another road more than 20m?) is possible via a cycleway (also checking the cycleway for i.e. width=* to check if it's usable for this specific vehicle).

This would be a "non-local" part of a routers cost function and all the tagging you need for that is already there, but this is nearly impossible to implement and not a single router is doing stuff like that.

This is why I share the opinion that an extension of the tagging scheme is neccesary to allow correct routing via local cost functions.

PeeWee32 wrote:

So what do you think of the next conclusion?
1. All roads with a "cycling forbidden" sign get a bicyle=no

No extension needed here. Remind that a road with cycling not  allowed does not neccesarily need bicyle=no. motorroad=yes implies bicyle=no, and check against bicyle=dismount.

Thanks. It's difficult to be clear and 100% correct. I guess this scheme could be the guide for when to add bicycle=no.

abrensch wrote:

2. [All (parts) of] a road next to a compulsary cycleway (blue sign) were you could get a fine by a policeman when riding a normal bicycle get a bicyle=avoid (tag to be discussed)

+1 for that

I'm glad you like this. I guess it would greatly improve your "routing engine" for cycling (normal bike) and give the oppertunity for routing for special bikes/ groups of race cyclists

abrensch wrote:

Could this work in Germany  or am I fighting windmills wink ?

The windmills you are fighting is the "All (parts)" remark. It should be made clear that this is not a strict access rule and that it is NOT necceary to fiddle with the "edge-issues" around crossings. If a router has no other choice than routing through a 5 Meter section of bicycle=avoid than he should just do it.

+1 although I think some of this issues can be solved with a little "better" mapping.

It looks like response for this proposal is not overwelming.  Reasons I can think of  are:

1. It could be that many agree/disagree but don't say so
2. The english language of this thread keeps some away from responding/reading
3. Some don't like me as a foreigner interfering in German tagging

I thinks it's best if I try this proposal in the Dutch forum with many active cyclists. In NL it is not allowed (yet?) to cycle these roads with a group of race cyclists but... discussions about this are alive. So maybe if the law changes the proposal will get more support wink

If someone wants to start a thread  about this proposal (in german this time).... be my guest.

Offline

#41 2013-08-11 21:19:57

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

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

PeeWee32 wrote:

Althought Rayquaza's examples all seem te be tracks I still get the picture. I've also seen that Wolmatinger has added some FIXME's  on these tracks so maybe a local mapper could fix this.

Only the one where I wrote so – the others are signed with a cycleway-Sign (but actually one of them is a highway=track from the other side).
@Wolmatinger: Bis auf den *=yes-Hinweis sind die fixme=* unpassend: Das eine sieht real wie ein normaler Gehsteig aus und das andere ist (iirc) (teilweise) wie eine normale Strasse (=gar nicht) ausgeschildert. I *am* a local mapper there wink

Offline

#42 2013-08-12 02:02:40

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

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

PeeWee32 wrote:

So what do you think of the next conclusion?
1. All roads with a "cycling forbidden" sign get a bicyle=no
2. All (parts) of a road next to a compulsary cycleway (blue sign) were you could get a fine by a policeman when riding a normal bicycle get a bicyle=avoid (tag to be discussed)

This would improve bicycle routing I think. What do you think? Could this work in Germany  or am I fighting windmills wink ?

I think 1) is common in OSM. (motorways, or barriers who you can't cycling gets a bicycle=no too)
And +1 to No. 2), including "tag to be discussed"!


Furthermore I think we have to discuss about the tags for the cycleway:
- designated: this is a tag for a way with a sign?! It tells nothing about the strict law i.e. about cycleways. So some German mapper introduce bicycle=official for the strict access.
- yes: this tag could to be used for cycleway where cycling is allowed. But the problem with tis is: many mappers tag some ways (mostly on path) with bicycle=yes, where cycling is possible. a part of this problem are the editors with the select menu... I think cycling=yes, walking=yes and riding=yes sounds better for only the possibility.

If we use designated for the strict law, we get a problem with designated for other ways which have a sign. And if we use bicycle=yes for signs which tell "cycling is allowed", there is the problem i explained at "- yes".
I think it is important if we want tag only one sign with one tag/one tag correlate to one sign, which may be helpful for OSM.

Offline

#43 2013-08-13 05:57:06

PeeWee32
Member
From: Leusden, NL
Registered: 2010-11-28
Posts: 1,302
Website

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

rayquaza wrote:
PeeWee32 wrote:

Althought Rayquaza's examples all seem te be tracks I still get the picture. I've also seen that Wolmatinger has added some FIXME's  on these tracks so maybe a local mapper could fix this.

Only the one where I wrote so – the others are signed with a cycleway-Sign (but actually one of them is a highway=track from the other side).
I *am* a local mapper there wink

OK thanks.
The first example is tagged as a highway = track. (clicking way will give OSM tags). But according to this scheme (though still proposal) would not requiere tags like foot=yes, bicycle=yes. In that way I can understand Wolmatigers remark. From the taggings I would not have guessed it was a compulsary cycleway. Thats the reason Mapnik renders it as a track (grade1) and not a cycleway.

You are right about the second example. It is not a track but a highway= footway. As you can see  Mapnik does not render these as a cycleway but as a footway. I thought combined cycleway/ footway  that are tagged as a highway=footway would get a bicycle=designated in Germany. This one has a "bicycle=official".  I guess that is why Mapnik does not render this as cycleway but as footway.

Offline

#44 2013-08-13 06:49:39

PeeWee32
Member
From: Leusden, NL
Registered: 2010-11-28
Posts: 1,302
Website

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

MasiMaster wrote:
PeeWee32 wrote:

So what do you think of the next conclusion?
1. All roads with a "cycling forbidden" sign get a bicyle=no
2. All (parts) of a road next to a compulsary cycleway (blue sign) were you could get a fine by a policeman when riding a normal bicycle get a bicyle=avoid (tag to be discussed)

This would improve bicycle routing I think. What do you think? Could this work in Germany  or am I fighting windmills wink ?

I think 1) is common in OSM. (motorways, or barriers who you can't cycling gets a bicycle=no too)
And +1 to No. 2), including "tag to be discussed"!


Furthermore I think we have to discuss about the tags for the cycleway:
- designated: this is a tag for a way with a sign?! It tells nothing about the strict law i.e. about cycleways. So some German mapper introduce bicycle=official for the strict access.
- yes: this tag could to be used for cycleway where cycling is allowed. But the problem with tis is: many mappers tag some ways (mostly on path) with bicycle=yes, where cycling is possible. a part of this problem are the editors with the select menu... I think cycling=yes, walking=yes and riding=yes sounds better for only the possibility.

If we use designated for the strict law, we get a problem with designated for other ways which have a sign. And if we use bicycle=yes for signs which tell "cycling is allowed", there is the problem i explained at "- yes".
I think it is important if we want tag only one sign with one tag/one tag correlate to one sign, which may be helpful for OSM.

Masimaster... we are brothers in arms wink. I aggree with what you say on both the issues of ways where cycling is (most of the time) forbidden and on tagging of cycleways. I also think it is important to keep these 2 issues apart not make discussions more complicated then it already is.

I have started a thread about the type1 and type2 roads where cycling is (most of the time) forbidden. A google translate version (NL>DE) is here but I do not know if this makes any sense so do not believe every word you read wink

Long story short. I think most understand that there is a need for a new tag in Gemany (edit: not only Germany ofcourse)  to keep these 2 ways apart which would help routing for cyclist. In NL there is not such a great need because it is costum to also tag type2 roads with a bicycle=no. This is the reason why routing for normal bikes in NL works better then in DE. But if in other countries (eg Germany) this new tag would be accepted and commenly used I am sure more countries (edit: including NL) will follow. Also routers/renderers would follow.

I've been thinking about the name for this tag.  What about "bicycle=no_unless"  . The "unless" indicates that there are exceptions. These exceptions vary from country to country but I am sure routers/renderers can deal with this. Still a lot better then tags like "bicycle_longer_then_x_wider_then_y =yes" or "group_of_cyclist_more_then_x_bicycles=yes" wink

Last edited by PeeWee32 (2013-08-13 12:20:26)

Offline

#45 2013-08-13 15:15:50

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

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

PeeWee32 wrote:

The first example is tagged as a highway = track. (clicking way will give OSM tags). But according to this scheme (though still proposal) would not requiere tags like foot=yes, bicycle=yes. In that way I can understand Wolmatigers remark. From the taggings I would not have guessed it was a compulsary cycleway. Thats the reason Mapnik renders it as a track (grade1) and not a cycleway.

That's the point: It is signed with a cycleway-Sign but since it leads away from the road it isn't compulsory (but you can't see this from where you would have to change to it). If you approach this intersection from this "Cycleway" you only see a Cycleway-End-Sign, no Cycleway-Begin-Sign.

PeeWee32 wrote:

You are right about the second example. It is not a track but a highway= footway. As you can see  Mapnik does not render these as a cycleway but as a footway. I thought combined cycleway/ footway  that are tagged as a highway=footway would get a bicycle=designated in Germany. This one has a "bicycle=official".  I guess that is why Mapnik does not render this as cycleway but as footway.

As I wrote above in german it actually looks like a normal sidewalk, so the rendering isn't that wrong. I'm not sure where the bicycle=official comes from, maybe I found that somewhere in the Wiki or on an other Way.


About what Google Translate produced with the NL-Thread: It's hardly readable. But here a few annotations:

  • Reply 4: Isn't exactly that the advantage of OSM? That we also have data for minorities? Remember: Only a few Percent of our potential users would use things like wheelchair=* (which I find totaly useless, but that's another topic).

  • Reply 9: If I understood correctly ("You should earn a tenth of your teachers"?) I have to aggree with that.

  • Reply 10: It is controversial if you would be allowed to use the road if you think the cycleway is too bad. If a policeman stops you using the road you're "guilty" (even if there's a cycleway-damage-sign) and if something happens because you used the cycleway you're "guilty" too…
    And i.e. parking cars are usualy not signed, but they still allow you to use the road between two entrys to the cycleway (which often means between at least two intersections).

Offline

#46 2013-08-13 18:21:16

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

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

rayquaza wrote:

That's the point: It is signed with a cycleway-Sign but since it leads away from the road it isn't compulsory (but you can't see this from where you would have to change to it). If you approach this intersection from this "Cycleway" you only see a Cycleway-End-Sign, no Cycleway-Begin-Sign.

Slacknas of the responsible adminstration. A problem in Germany.

e.g.
- sign 240 instead of sign 250 + Rad frei or sign 260
- sign 239 is replaced through sign 254
- missing bicycle=yes sign on ways with sign 250 + vehicle/access=destination/agriculture which are signed as bicycle-route
...

Offline

#47 2013-08-13 22:48:20

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

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

PeeWee32 wrote:

I have started a thread about the type1 and type2 roads where cycling is (most of the time) forbidden. A google translate version (NL>DE) is here but I do not know if this makes any sense so do not believe every word you read wink

I think we can understand the translation (the translation is so bad, because it works: NL -> EN -> DE. often it makes more sense, read the english translation, even you cant understand each fourth word smile )

PeeWee32 wrote:

Long story short. I think most understand that there is a need for a new tag in Gemany (edit: not only Germany ofcourse)  to keep these 2 ways apart which would help routing for cyclist. In NL there is not such a great need because it is costum to also tag type2 roads with a bicycle=no. This is the reason why routing for normal bikes in NL works better then in DE. But if in other countries (eg Germany) this new tag would be accepted and commenly used I am sure more countries (edit: including NL) will follow. Also routers/renderers would follow.

I think the bicycle=no works for NL, because there are very few cycleways (and most >90% ?? are good), so there is no reason to cycling on the road.
In DE most cycleways (>80%) are very bad and often car-drivers use them for parking and pedestrian for walking without looking for (bicycle-)traffic. So often it is allowed to cycle on the road.

The example with the green and red arrows: in Germany you may cross the crossing over the road, because there is no parallel cycleway (in a 5m distance). And because it is not possible to sort you on the right lane for cycling straight, it is allowed to switch to the road a intersection before. (It only works, if you know the crossing.)

In Austria riders with a racing bike on a training-tour, they are allowed to drive on the road! only a "bicycle=no-sign" can stop them (as well as motorway etc.)

PeeWee32 wrote:

I've been thinking about the name for this tag.  What about "bicycle=no_unless"  . The "unless" indicates that there are exceptions. These exceptions vary from country to country but I am sure routers/renderers can deal with this. Still a lot better then tags like "bicycle_longer_then_x_wider_then_y =yes" or "group_of_cyclist_more_then_x_bicycles=yes" wink

I'm not really happy with no_unless, because the double negation (no & un) and the two words. But i don't have a better idea.

Offline

#48 2013-08-13 23:13:53

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

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

Wolmatinger wrote:
rayquaza wrote:

That's the point: It is signed with a cycleway-Sign but since it leads away from the road it isn't compulsory (but you can't see this from where you would have to change to it). If you approach this intersection from this "Cycleway" you only see a Cycleway-End-Sign, no Cycleway-Begin-Sign.

Slacknas of the responsible adminstration. A problem in Germany.

e.g.
- sign 240 instead of sign 250 + Rad frei or sign 260
- sign 239 is replaced through sign 254
- missing bicycle=yes sign on ways with sign 250 + vehicle/access=destination/agriculture which are signed as bicycle-route
...

I completely agree! The administration in Germany do nothing for cyclists! Also the ways with are not parallel to the road, here the official bicycle sign are wrong. (I think this is because we don't have a no sign like in france: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/26 … radweg.png or the "fietspad-sign" in NL). But this is a problem in Germany and out of OSM.

Last edited by MasiMaster (2013-08-13 23:15:16)

Offline

#49 2013-08-14 18:29:30

PeeWee32
Member
From: Leusden, NL
Registered: 2010-11-28
Posts: 1,302
Website

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

rayquaza wrote:

That's the point: It is signed with a cycleway-Sign but since it leads away from the road it isn't compulsory (but you can't see this from where you would have to change to it). If you approach this intersection from this "Cycleway" you only see a Cycleway-End-Sign, no Cycleway-Begin-Sign.

Her I go again. When I wrote "compulsary cycleway" I meant a cycleway with a bleu sign/bicycle. In NL is it common to call these compulsary but in DE it is not always so.. Communication.... difficult as always wink 

rayquaza wrote:

Reply 9: If I understood correctly ("You should earn a tenth of your teachers"?) I have to aggree with that.

correct.. Danke wink

rayquaza wrote:

Reply 10: It is controversial if you would be allowed to use the road if you think the cycleway is too bad. If a policeman stops you using the road you're "guilty" (even if there's a cycleway-damage-sign) and if something happens because you used the cycleway you're "guilty" too…
And i.e. parking cars are usualy not signed, but they still allow you to use the road between two entrys to the cycleway (which often means between at least two intersections)

I don't know if I understand correctly but in NL it is not allowed to park a car on a cycleway so here's an other difference between the 2 countries.

Offline

#50 2013-08-14 18:37:22

PeeWee32
Member
From: Leusden, NL
Registered: 2010-11-28
Posts: 1,302
Website

Re: Classification of Cycle Paths

MasiMaster wrote:

In Austria riders with a racing bike on a training-tour, they are allowed to drive on the road! only a "bicycle=no-sign" can stop them (as well as motorway etc.)

I understand this also goes for some "Bundesländer". I heard from a Dutchman living close to the Niedersachsen/Holland border that is is also allowed there.

MasiMaster wrote:

I'm not really happy with no_unless, because the double negation (no & un) and the two words. But i don't have a better idea.

On the Dutch forum Ligfietser came up with the "bicycle=use_cycleway" . The best so far. It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a tag to discribe all the exceptions so this one seems pretty good to me.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB