Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

Ulrich Lamm
Hi all,

I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and cycleway=optional.

Now I hope for your comments.

Ulrich
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

Mateusz Konieczny-2
No, no, no.

Cycleway key is already used for a different purpose! Cycleway=lane, cycleway=opposite,
cycleway=shared_lane etc may be either obligatory or optional.

This proposal would mean that one may record either type of cycleway or its legal implications but not both!

Also, link to a detailed proposal is missing in your message.

2014-12-22 2:20 GMT+01:00 Ulrich Lamm <[hidden email]>:
Hi all,

I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and cycleway=optional.

Now I hope for your comments.

Ulrich
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

Martin Vonwald (Imagic)
Here's the link to the proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Proposed_features/Obligatory_vs._optional_cycletrack

2014-12-22 6:24 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]>:
No, no, no.

In my opinion, there are a few "no"s missing here. So I'll add at least one more: no. Well, make that two: No.

br,
Martin



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

Nadjita

> 2014-12-22 6:24 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>
>     No, no, no.
>
>
> In my opinion, there are a few "no"s missing here. So I'll add at least
> one more: no. Well, make that two: No.

Let me add several "no"s:

No, no, no, no, NO!

Reasons have already been given.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-2
Hi,

   what is the legal situation in different countries - is Germany one
of a very small number of countries that has this concept of "if there
is a certain type of cycleway than cyclists must not use the road", or
is this quite common?

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

zvenzzon
In Sweden it also generally not allowed to cycle on the road if a cycleway are present. There are some exeptions to this rule, but one cyclist actually got judged recently for violating this law.

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Frederik Ramm <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

   what is the legal situation in different countries - is Germany one
of a very small number of countries that has this concept of "if there
is a certain type of cycleway than cyclists must not use the road", or
is this quite common?

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

Colin Smale
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm

In NL I think it is similar to Germany. The definition of the sign is "verplicht fietspad" i.e. compulsory cycle track. When the cycle track runs adjacent to a road the intention is clear, but the sign is interestingly also used for cycle paths through the middle of the countryside with no adjacent road. One might interpret this as "you MUST follow this path, even if it goes in the wrong direction for you"....

In Dutch law a "snorfiets" (light motorbike with pedals, max. 25 km/h) is equivalent to a bicycle, but a proper moped (max. 45 km/h) is a different class of vehicle. A "snorfiets" (called a "mofa" in OSM - is that a German term?) must follow the same rules as cycles. In some areas a moped is expected to use cycle tracks (the round blue sign shows both a cycle and a moped) but in other areas mopeds must follow the roads.

There is also a "non-mandatory cycle track" which is a path on which it is permitted to cycle. "Snorfietsen" can use these paths as well of course, but only in in pedal mode (unless they are electric).

Colin

 

On 2014-12-22 10:54, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

   what is the legal situation in different countries - is Germany one
of a very small number of countries that has this concept of "if there
is a certain type of cycleway than cyclists must not use the road", or
is this quite common?

Bye
Frederik

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

Marc Gemis
In Belgium the cyclist always have to use the cycleway, except

- the path is in bad condition (glass, snow, holes,  ...)
- Children on small bikes
- groups of cyclists.

regards

m

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Colin Smale <[hidden email]> wrote:

In NL I think it is similar to Germany. The definition of the sign is "verplicht fietspad" i.e. compulsory cycle track. When the cycle track runs adjacent to a road the intention is clear, but the sign is interestingly also used for cycle paths through the middle of the countryside with no adjacent road. One might interpret this as "you MUST follow this path, even if it goes in the wrong direction for you"....

In Dutch law a "snorfiets" (light motorbike with pedals, max. 25 km/h) is equivalent to a bicycle, but a proper moped (max. 45 km/h) is a different class of vehicle. A "snorfiets" (called a "mofa" in OSM - is that a German term?) must follow the same rules as cycles. In some areas a moped is expected to use cycle tracks (the round blue sign shows both a cycle and a moped) but in other areas mopeds must follow the roads.

There is also a "non-mandatory cycle track" which is a path on which it is permitted to cycle. "Snorfietsen" can use these paths as well of course, but only in in pedal mode (unless they are electric).

Colin

 

On 2014-12-22 10:54, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

   what is the legal situation in different countries - is Germany one
of a very small number of countries that has this concept of "if there
is a certain type of cycleway than cyclists must not use the road", or
is this quite common?

Bye
Frederik

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

Hubert87
In reply to this post by Colin Smale

I would confirm this.

Except  Mofas (German abbreviation for Motor Fahrrad) don’t count as bicycle in germany. They may use cycle way  in rural areas (outside of Cities, Towns, Villages) or if it is explicitly allowed (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Zusatzzeichen_1022-11.svg).

 

Yours Hubert

 

From: Colin Smale [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Montag, 22. Dezember 2014 11:18
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

 

In NL I think it is similar to Germany. The definition of the sign is "verplicht fietspad" i.e. compulsory cycle track. When the cycle track runs adjacent to a road the intention is clear, but the sign is interestingly also used for cycle paths through the middle of the countryside with no adjacent road. One might interpret this as "you MUST follow this path, even if it goes in the wrong direction for you"....

In Dutch law a "snorfiets" (light motorbike with pedals, max. 25 km/h) is equivalent to a bicycle, but a proper moped (max. 45 km/h) is a different class of vehicle. A "snorfiets" (called a "mofa" in OSM - is that a German term?) must follow the same rules as cycles. In some areas a moped is expected to use cycle tracks (the round blue sign shows both a cycle and a moped) but in other areas mopeds must follow the roads.

There is also a "non-mandatory cycle track" which is a path on which it is permitted to cycle. "Snorfietsen" can use these paths as well of course, but only in in pedal mode (unless they are electric).

Colin

 

On 2014-12-22 10:54, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,
 
   what is the legal situation in different countries - is Germany one
of a very small number of countries that has this concept of "if there
is a certain type of cycleway than cyclists must not use the road", or
is this quite common?
 
Bye
Frederik

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

althio
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
In France the situation exists. Two signs are designed for this (but
not well understood by people and even sometimes misused by
authorities):

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Road_signs_in_France

Sign B22a (round, blue) = compulsory / mandatory / obligatory
Bicycles MUST use, bicycles not authorised on main road.

Sign C113 (square, blue) = optional / proposed / reserved
Bicycles may use cycleway or share road with motor vehicles

Compulsory cycleway with sign B22a is even clearer when the main road shows:
Sign B9b (round, red circle) = forbidden / not allowed / no access
Bicycles not authorised on road (reserved for motor vehicles) or path
(reserved for pedestrians).

If the road and the cycleway are two differents OSM entities (2 ways):
the situation of a compulsory cycleway (B9b+B22a) is currently not
tagged on the cycleway but on the separate way for road with motor
vehicles. Used tags (status unknown) may include bicycle=no or
bicycle=use_sidepath.

On 22 December 2014 at 10:54, Frederik Ramm <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>    what is the legal situation in different countries - is Germany one
> of a very small number of countries that has this concept of "if there
> is a certain type of cycleway than cyclists must not use the road", or
> is this quite common?
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by Martin Vonwald (Imagic)
Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote:
> Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > No, no, no.
> In my opinion, there are a few "no"s missing here. So I'll add at least
> one more: no. Well, make that two: No.

...there's no limit...

Richard

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

Martin Vonwald (Imagic)


2014-12-22 13:58 GMT+01:00 Richard Fairhurst <[hidden email]>:
Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote:
> Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > No, no, no.
> In my opinion, there are a few "no"s missing here. So I'll add at least
> one more: no. Well, make that two: No.
...there's no limit...

Oh my.... 1992... I'm getting old ;-) I even got the CD...

P.S: For everyone who only knows iTunes&Co: "CD" is something like a physical download. No one uses them today anymore ;-)


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

fly high
In reply to this post by Ulrich Lamm
As we have tags for different kind of *lane the only problem is
cycleway=track.

Now we have two solutions:

1. deprecate cycleway=track in favour of cycleway=*_track
2. add a new key like bicycle_track=*

My two cents

fly

Am 22.12.2014 um 12:30 schrieb Hubert:

> The need to distinguish between obligatory and optional cycle ways
> isquite common. Right now it’s done by distinguishing between
> bicycle=official/designated and bicycle=yes or bicycle=officialand
> bicycle=designated/yes.
>
> In a similar way, I think it is better to use something like
> bicycle=obligatory instead of cycleway=optionalsince it is more of an
> access problem, than a type problem.(I alsodon’tlike
> cycleway=opposite)After all the only difference is where one may or must
> ride. The cycle way itself does look the same, except for the missing sing.
>
> OnMontag, 22. Dezember 2014 02:20Ulrich
> Lamm<___ulamm.brem@t-online.de_<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>
>>
>
>> I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and
>
>> cycleway=optional.
>
>>
>
>> Now I hope for your comments.



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

715371
In reply to this post by Ulrich Lamm
Am 22.12.2014 um 02:20 schrieb Ulrich Lamm:
> I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and cycleway=optional.

I am still against this tag as I mentioned several times.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

Mateusz Konieczny-2
In reply to this post by fly high
"cycleway=track"

I propose to treat this tag as a special case of fixme - it indicates
some sort of cycleway parallel to road, without any additional details.

In theory it is possible to add tags that specify surface, side of road,
width by tags like cycleway:track:left:surface, but it is ridiculous.

Especially specifying geometry (where cycleway is) is
nearly impossible (and sometimes impossible in any sane way -
sometimes cycleway is next to road but distance changes).

These things are trivial for tagging as a separate way
(with highway=cycleway with normal set of tags). Especially
geometry is defined in a standard way, not by some ridiculous tags.

At least this is my experience from tagging cycleway
data in Kraków and using this data to render a map of bicycle
related infrastructure.


2014-12-22 23:49 GMT+01:00 fly <[hidden email]>:
As we have tags for different kind of *lane the only problem is
cycleway=track.

Now we have two solutions:

1. deprecate cycleway=track in favour of cycleway=*_track
2. add a new key like bicycle_track=*

My two cents

fly

Am 22.12.2014 um 12:30 schrieb Hubert:
> The need to distinguish between obligatory and optional cycle ways
> isquite common. Right now it’s done by distinguishing between
> bicycle=official/designated and bicycle=yes or bicycle=officialand
> bicycle=designated/yes.
>
> In a similar way, I think it is better to use something like
> bicycle=obligatory instead of cycleway=optionalsince it is more of an
> access problem, than a type problem.(I alsodon’tlike
> cycleway=opposite)After all the only difference is where one may or must
> ride. The cycle way itself does look the same, except for the missing sing.
>
> OnMontag, 22. Dezember 2014 02:20Ulrich
> Lamm<___ulamm.brem@t-online.de_<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>
>>
>
>> I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and
>
>> cycleway=optional.
>
>>
>
>> Now I hope for your comments.



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

dieterdreist

2014-12-23 8:17 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]>:
"cycleway=track"

I propose to treat this tag as a special case of fixme - it indicates
some sort of cycleway parallel to road, without any additional details.

In theory it is possible to add tags that specify surface, side of road,
width by tags like cycleway:track:left:surface, but it is ridiculous.

Especially specifying geometry (where cycleway is) is
nearly impossible (and sometimes impossible in any sane way -
sometimes cycleway is next to road but distance changes).

These things are trivial for tagging as a separate way
(with highway=cycleway with normal set of tags). Especially
geometry is defined in a standard way, not by some ridiculous tags.


completely agree to everything here. Also adding tags for parallel ways to the "main highway" would require enormous splitting fragmentation on the main highway if you start to map the details, leading to a less maintainable map.

cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

Hubert87

Hallo,

I didn’t want to bring it up on the discussion page yet, but I’m working a way to double represent road adjacent cycle ways/ cycle tracks as part of the road way and also on the separate  way.

It is far from being ready for representation, but it just fits the discussion right now. It has some ideas for distinguishing “near” cycle tracks (separated by a curb only) and “far” ones, too. My ideas are being discussed on the German mailing list and can be found on this wiki page: http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/User:Hubert87/DoubleRepresentation

 

As for having “cycleway=track” on the street-osm-way: There are cases where it is better to have it on the road itself. For example when rendering cycle ways in lower zoom levels.

 

Happy Holidays

Hubert

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Dienstag, 23.
Dezember 2014 09:52
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

 

 

2014-12-23 8:17 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]>:

"cycleway=track"

I propose to treat this tag as a special case of fixme - it indicates
some sort of cycleway parallel to road, without any additional details.

In theory it is possible to add tags that specify surface, side of road,
width by tags like cycleway:track:left:surface, but it is ridiculous.

Especially specifying geometry (where cycleway is) is
nearly impossible (and sometimes impossible in any sane way -

sometimes cycleway is next to road but distance changes).


These things are trivial for tagging as a separate way
(with highway=cycleway with normal set of tags). Especially
geometry is defined in a standard way, not by some ridiculous tags.



completely agree to everything here. Also adding tags for parallel ways to the "main highway" would require enormous splitting fragmentation on the main highway if you start to map the details, leading to a less maintainable map.

cheers,
Martin


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

Pee Wee
In reply to this post by Ulrich Lamm

First of all my compliments for seeking the opinions of the tagging mailing list and your effort to improve OSM.

Here are my 2 cents

 

1 Why does OSM need to distinguish between obligatory and optional cycle ways?

As a cyclist myself I can see some reasons why it could be useful for routers and/or renderers. I think the proposal would improve if this was explained a little further. (add some use cases for example)

 

2 Obligatory/optional for who?

When I see these words I think of means of transportation rather than types of “highways”. In NL a cycleway can be obligatory for : bicycles, mopeds, mofas, pedestrians. So when I see cycleway=obligatory I wonder for whom?

 

3 Legislation varies country to country and is not clear to all mappers.

During the discussions on the bicycle=use_sidepath  tag I noticed that the word “compulsory/obligatory” has a different meaning in different countries. Also many people (including mappers) don’t know exactly what the difference is between optional and obligatory cycle ways.

 

4 Is the “traffic_sign=* “  an alternative?

In many counties the difference between the 2 types derives from traffic signs. In NL we have 3 types of traffic signs for cycle ways. 1 is optional and the other 2 are obligatory (for ordinary bicycles). On this map in my area you can see the differences between the 3. (please wait for overpass query to render)

 

Cheers

PeeWee32


2014-12-22 2:20 GMT+01:00 Ulrich Lamm <[hidden email]>:
Hi all,

I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and cycleway=optional.

Now I hope for your comments.

Ulrich
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



--
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging