Footways bikes can go on

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Footways bikes can go on

Edward Bainton
Is there established tagging for a tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but designated foot and cycles shared?

Eg: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974

There's highway=cycleway | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it doesn't feel like one, and you can't go full speed. But maybe that's the best tag nonetheless?

Thanks.



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Footways bikes can go on

Great Britain mailing list
segregated=no

I added it to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle as an example S7

surface=asphalt (if I am interpreting word "tarmac" well)
width=1.5 / est_width=1.5 if you want

Access tags are bit weird, but I will leave commenting to people who know GB rules
well.


Nov 21, 2020, 11:28 by [hidden email]:
Is there established tagging for a tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but designated foot and cycles shared?


There's highway=cycleway | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it doesn't feel like one, and you can't go full speed. But maybe that's the best tag nonetheless?

Thanks.




_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Footways bikes can go on

Great Britain mailing list
In reply to this post by Edward Bainton
HI

There's a misconception that highway=cycleway implies an automatic authority over other path users. This is untrue It's just a hierarchy of the number of different transport modes permitted to use it. Similarly, highway=residential permits motor vehicles as well as bicycles & pedestrians.Who has right of way is specific to certain locations.

If it's definitely designated as cyclable (I couldn't see any signs in GSV) then I'd tag it as

highway=cycleway
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
segregated=no
surface=asphalt  (in this case)
width=*

If you know it's a public footpath add:
designation=public_footpath

If you know the footpath's reference add:
prow_ref=*

Is there a reason you tagged it as access=no?

The only place a rider of a bicycle should go full speed is in a velodrome.

Cheers
DaveF

On 21/11/2020 10:28, Edward Bainton wrote:
Is there established tagging for a tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but designated foot and cycles shared?

Eg: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974

There's highway=cycleway | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it doesn't feel like one, and you can't go full speed. But maybe that's the best tag nonetheless?

Thanks.



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Footways bikes can go on

Stephen Colebourne
I'm of the view that if it is fundamentally a footway then it should
be tagged as highway=footway. If bicycles are allowed, then add
bicycle=designated.

If the question is here:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.545389,-0.2770973,3a,75y,234.69h,79.34t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_-EkidXXQeWqPY5KfXGmaQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_-EkidXXQeWqPY5KfXGmaQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D96.41411%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
then this is just a footpath across a bit of grass that someone has
decided to allow bikes on. Looks like a footway, rides like a footway,
tag like a footway

Stephen


On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 13:48, Dave F via Talk-GB
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> There's a misconception that highway=cycleway implies an automatic authority over other path users. This is untrue It's just a hierarchy of the number of different transport modes permitted to use it. Similarly, highway=residential permits motor vehicles as well as bicycles & pedestrians.Who has right of way is specific to certain locations.
>
> If it's definitely designated as cyclable (I couldn't see any signs in GSV) then I'd tag it as
>
> highway=cycleway
> bicycle=designated
> foot=designated
> segregated=no
> surface=asphalt  (in this case)
> width=*
>
> If you know it's a public footpath add:
> designation=public_footpath
>
> If you know the footpath's reference add:
> prow_ref=*
>
> Is there a reason you tagged it as access=no?
>
> The only place a rider of a bicycle should go full speed is in a velodrome.
>
> Cheers
> DaveF
>
> On 21/11/2020 10:28, Edward Bainton wrote:
>
> Is there established tagging for a tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but designated foot and cycles shared?
>
> Eg: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974
>
> There's highway=cycleway | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it doesn't feel like one, and you can't go full speed. But maybe that's the best tag nonetheless?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Footways bikes can go on

Tony OSM

Wiki says

bicycle yes Where bicycles are permitted, overriding default access (such as to motorways that permit bicycles as commonly found in western parts of North America)
bicycle designated Where a way has been specially designated (typically by a government) for bicycle use

So in the example 'designated' is not an option as there are no signs indicating that bicycles are allowed on this footway.

'yes'  is probably wrong as there is no obvious permission and in England and Wales Highways Act 1835 s72 'If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers;' . . .a penalty. So in the absence of any evidence - no bicycles.

In practice it is customary to ride a bicycle and no one is bothered unless inconvenience or damage is caused. But how to mark this in OSM? Change the meaning of 'yes' to include customary use?

Tony

On 21/11/2020 14:04, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
I'm of the view that if it is fundamentally a footway then it should
be tagged as highway=footway. If bicycles are allowed, then add
bicycle=designated.

If the question is here:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.545389,-0.2770973,3a,75y,234.69h,79.34t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_-EkidXXQeWqPY5KfXGmaQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_-EkidXXQeWqPY5KfXGmaQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D96.41411%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
then this is just a footpath across a bit of grass that someone has
decided to allow bikes on. Looks like a footway, rides like a footway,
tag like a footway

Stephen


On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 13:48, Dave F via Talk-GB
[hidden email] wrote:
There's a misconception that highway=cycleway implies an automatic authority over other path users. This is untrue It's just a hierarchy of the number of different transport modes permitted to use it. Similarly, highway=residential permits motor vehicles as well as bicycles & pedestrians.Who has right of way is specific to certain locations.

If it's definitely designated as cyclable (I couldn't see any signs in GSV) then I'd tag it as

highway=cycleway
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
segregated=no
surface=asphalt  (in this case)
width=*

If you know it's a public footpath add:
designation=public_footpath

If you know the footpath's reference add:
prow_ref=*

Is there a reason you tagged it as access=no?

The only place a rider of a bicycle should go full speed is in a velodrome.

Cheers
DaveF

On 21/11/2020 10:28, Edward Bainton wrote:

Is there established tagging for a tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but designated foot and cycles shared?

Eg: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974

There's highway=cycleway | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it doesn't feel like one, and you can't go full speed. But maybe that's the best tag nonetheless?

Thanks.



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Footways bikes can go on

Great Britain mailing list
there is also bicycle=permissive (based on access=permissive) for
"permitted right now but can be revoked/changed at any time"

In general modelling "clearly illegal but accepted and normal" is problematic
for access/parking tagging in OSM.

Nov 21, 2020, 16:36 by [hidden email]:

Wiki says

Where bicycles are permitted, overriding default access (such as to motorways that permit bicycles as commonly found in western parts of North America)
Where a way has been specially designated (typically by a government) for bicycle use

So in the example 'designated' is not an option as there are no signs indicating that bicycles are allowed on this footway.

'yes'  is probably wrong as there is no obvious permission and in England and Wales Highways Act 1835 s72 'If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers;' . . .a penalty. So in the absence of any evidence - no bicycles.

In practice it is customary to ride a bicycle and no one is bothered unless inconvenience or damage is caused. But how to mark this in OSM? Change the meaning of 'yes' to include customary use?

Tony

On 21/11/2020 14:04, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
I'm of the view that if it is fundamentally a footway then it should
be tagged as highway=footway. If bicycles are allowed, then add
bicycle=designated.

If the question is here:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.545389,-0.2770973,3a,75y,234.69h,79.34t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_-EkidXXQeWqPY5KfXGmaQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_-EkidXXQeWqPY5KfXGmaQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D96.41411%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
then this is just a footpath across a bit of grass that someone has
decided to allow bikes on. Looks like a footway, rides like a footway,
tag like a footway

Stephen


On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 13:48, Dave F via Talk-GB
[hidden email] wrote:

There's a misconception that highway=cycleway implies an automatic authority over other path users. This is untrue It's just a hierarchy of the number of different transport modes permitted to use it. Similarly, highway=residential permits motor vehicles as well as bicycles & pedestrians.Who has right of way is specific to certain locations.

If it's definitely designated as cyclable (I couldn't see any signs in GSV) then I'd tag it as

highway=cycleway
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
segregated=no
surface=asphalt  (in this case)
width=*

If you know it's a public footpath add:
designation=public_footpath

If you know the footpath's reference add:
prow_ref=*

Is there a reason you tagged it as access=no?

The only place a rider of a bicycle should go full speed is in a velodrome.

Cheers
DaveF

On 21/11/2020 10:28, Edward Bainton wrote:

Is there established tagging for a tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but designated foot and cycles shared?

Eg: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974

There's highway=cycleway | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it doesn't feel like one, and you can't go full speed. But maybe that's the best tag nonetheless?

Thanks.



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Footways bikes can go on

David Woolley
On 21/11/2020 15:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
> there is also bicycle=permissive (based on access=permissive) for
> "permitted right now but can be revoked/changed at any time"

The way seems to be in a park, and, in general, permissive is the
maximum legal status of any path in a park, unless it is also a
bridleway or public footpath, in the definitive map.

>
> In general modelling "clearly illegal but accepted and normal" is
> problematic
> for access/parking tagging in OSM.
>

There is a modal filter near me, on a temporary traffic regulation
order.  It has been flouted for all the three months that it has
existed.  However it is clearly signed as emergency vehicles (and
non-motor vehicles) only.  In that case accepted use shouldn't represent
how it is mapped.  (It also has enforcement camera signs, and it might
be interesting to find how many fines they collect if they do install
the cameras.  I suspect the abuse will stop until they are moved elsewhere.)

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Footways bikes can go on

Edward Bainton
Thanks all for these ideas. The path is marked as shared, but only in the middle of the park - it's a bit odd. (It's even on a cross-city cycle route.) 

It's the actual highway=* tag that I was most puzzled over, but it sounds like with the access tags this is academic for routing purposes. 

In which case it would seem the 'looks like a footway, rides like a footway' criterion would be best?

Not relevant here, but like Tony I also would love a tag that means 'everyone cycles here, even if it's technically illegal'. I think it was SK53 who suggested some use 'tolerated', which seems pretty good to me. 



On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 16:00, David Woolley <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 21/11/2020 15:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
> there is also bicycle=permissive (based on access=permissive) for
> "permitted right now but can be revoked/changed at any time"

The way seems to be in a park, and, in general, permissive is the
maximum legal status of any path in a park, unless it is also a
bridleway or public footpath, in the definitive map.

>
> In general modelling "clearly illegal but accepted and normal" is
> problematic
> for access/parking tagging in OSM.
>

There is a modal filter near me, on a temporary traffic regulation
order.  It has been flouted for all the three months that it has
existed.  However it is clearly signed as emergency vehicles (and
non-motor vehicles) only.  In that case accepted use shouldn't represent
how it is mapped.  (It also has enforcement camera signs, and it might
be interesting to find how many fines they collect if they do install
the cameras.  I suspect the abuse will stop until they are moved elsewhere.)

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Footways bikes can go on

Dan S
Yes, either highway=footway or highway=cycleway are fine, and there's almost no difference if you're also tagging access rights explicitly! Thanks for being careful about it.

Dan

Op za 21 nov. 2020 om 18:38 schreef Edward Bainton <[hidden email]>:
Thanks all for these ideas. The path is marked as shared, but only in the middle of the park - it's a bit odd. (It's even on a cross-city cycle route.) 

It's the actual highway=* tag that I was most puzzled over, but it sounds like with the access tags this is academic for routing purposes. 

In which case it would seem the 'looks like a footway, rides like a footway' criterion would be best?

Not relevant here, but like Tony I also would love a tag that means 'everyone cycles here, even if it's technically illegal'. I think it was SK53 who suggested some use 'tolerated', which seems pretty good to me. 



On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 16:00, David Woolley <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 21/11/2020 15:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
> there is also bicycle=permissive (based on access=permissive) for
> "permitted right now but can be revoked/changed at any time"

The way seems to be in a park, and, in general, permissive is the
maximum legal status of any path in a park, unless it is also a
bridleway or public footpath, in the definitive map.

>
> In general modelling "clearly illegal but accepted and normal" is
> problematic
> for access/parking tagging in OSM.
>

There is a modal filter near me, on a temporary traffic regulation
order.  It has been flouted for all the three months that it has
existed.  However it is clearly signed as emergency vehicles (and
non-motor vehicles) only.  In that case accepted use shouldn't represent
how it is mapped.  (It also has enforcement camera signs, and it might
be interesting to find how many fines they collect if they do install
the cameras.  I suspect the abuse will stop until they are moved elsewhere.)

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Footways bikes can go on

Great Britain mailing list
In reply to this post by Edward Bainton
On 21/11/2020 18:35, Edward Bainton wrote:
Thanks all for these ideas. The path is marked as shared, but only in the middle of the park - it's a bit odd. (It's even on a cross-city cycle route.) 

It's the actual highway=* tag that I was most puzzled over, but it sounds like with the access tags this is academic for routing purposes. 

In which case it would seem the 'looks like a footway, rides like a footway' criterion would be best?

Given the signage, I think the tags I listed are appropriate.


Not relevant here, but like Tony I also would love a tag that means 'everyone cycles here, even if it's technically illegal'. I think it was SK53 who suggested some use 'tolerated', which seems pretty good to me. 


That's a whole load of subjectivity, that OSM  /really/ shouldn't get involved with.

DaveF

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Footways bikes can go on

ndrw6
In reply to this post by Edward Bainton
JOSM preset is:

highway=path

bicycle=designated

foot=designated

segregated=no

I quite like it as it doesn't imply one use is preferred to another.


On 21/11/2020 10:28, Edward Bainton wrote:

> Is there established tagging for a tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but
> designated foot and cycles shared?
>
> Eg: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974
>
> There's highway=cycleway | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it
> doesn't feel like one, and you can't go full speed. But maybe that's
> the best tag nonetheless?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Footways bikes can go on

Adam Snape
In reply to this post by Tony OSM
On Sat, 21 Nov 2020, 15:39 Tony Shield, <[hidden email]> wrote:

'yes'  is probably wrong as there is no obvious permission and in England and Wales Highways Act 1835 s72 'If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers;' . . .a penalty. So in the absence of any evidence - no bicycles.


The key part of this gloriously archaic statute (which predates the invention of the bicycle*) is "by the side of any road" ie. it concerns paths which we would now refer to as  or sidewalks. There is no general law against riding bicycles elsewhere including any other kind of footpaths.

Which is not to say it is not in cases irresponsible or antisocial. It is also potentially a civil trespass against the landowner to ride a bike where not permitted. But, on the other hand, as Tony notes, such usage can be harmless and become customary. If such customary usage is maintained for long enough it can even become a legal right which is how we have ended up with rights of way. 

Thus, at least in the legal sense the absence of explicitly allowed (bicycle=yes/designated)  does not mean forbidden (bicycle=no). That might be a good assumption for routers to make but personally I'd only add bicycle=no where there was an explicit prohibition.




_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb