JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

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

JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

Tagging mailing list
Hi
Unsure if these validation warnings on uploading a changeset in JOSM are
new or I've never noticed them before:

 >"Suspicious tag combination highway=cycleway together with
foot=designated, use highway=path"

     This is incorrect. A cycleway tag can be used on a shared path, one
which can have a designation for other
     transport modes, such as a Public Right of Way for walkers.

     Some erroneously believe footway,cycleway or bridleway signifies
some kind of priority or authority which
     automatically excludes other transport modes. It doesn't.
     It's an indication of the number of different modes allowed to use
them. Of course there are variations on this,
     which can be clarified with relevant 'access' & 'designation' tags.

     Many are rescinding the use of 'path' as, well, it's just a
confusing, duplicating late comer
     https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333

     Note the major renders make no distinction between 'path' & 'footway'

 >"unnecessary tag - foot=yes/designated is unnecessary for highway=footway"

     This is also incorrect. As an example It's used to distinguish
between constructed footways through housing
     estates or those signed with 'footpath' from, say, worn grass
around the perimeter of a farmers field where they
     allows dog walkers to exercise.

Anybody know when & why these were introduced?


DaveF





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

Re: JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 6. Jul 2019, at 14:59, Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Anybody know when & why these were introduced?


IIRR, it was like 10-20 years ago.
You should be able to find more information on the path page in the wiki.

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

Re: JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
On 06/07/2019 13:59, Dave F via Tagging wrote:

> Hi
> Unsure if these validation warnings on uploading a changeset in JOSM
> are new or I've never noticed them before:
>
> >"Suspicious tag combination highway=cycleway together with
> foot=designated, use highway=path"
>
>     This is incorrect. A cycleway tag can be used on a shared path,
> one which can have a designation for other
>     transport modes, such as a Public Right of Way for walkers.
>
Where any editor gives incorrect suggestions I'd suggest raising a
ticket with the editor concerned about it.  I've done that a couple of
times in the past with JOSM and the issues have been resolved almost
immediately.

Obviously it helps to provide a bit of background as to why and in what
circumstances a particular suggestion is incorrect.

Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

Tagging mailing list
On 06/07/2019 14:08, Andy Townsend wrote:
> Where any editor gives incorrect suggestions I'd suggest raising a
> ticket with the editor concerned about it.  I've done that a couple of
> times in the past with JOSM and the issues have been resolved almost
> immediately.
>
> Obviously it helps to provide a bit of background as to why and in
> what circumstances a particular suggestion is incorrect.

I agree, but I wanted to check with a wider audience that I haven't
grabbed the wrong end of the stick. I'm more than happy to be proved wrong.

Plus you don't always get a *balanced* viewpoint from those who directly
wrote the code. <cough> iD <cough>

DaveF



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

Re: JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

marc marc
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
Le 06.07.19 à 14:59, Dave F via Tagging a écrit :
>  > use highway=path"
> This is incorrect <...> on a shared path

Funny to say that a shared PATH mapped with highway=PATH is incorrect.
we already have this discussion several times on talk-fr, it's often
the same scenario:
- a cyclist considers that it is a cycle path with these *** pedestrians
that is embedded
- a pedestrian thinks the opposite
the only coherent is imho highway=path foot=designated
cycleway=designated segrated=yes/no.

if you think that English legislation makes it inappropriate and you
make it a josm ticket, don't forget to specify that it is only English
legislation
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list



6 lip 2019, 14:59 od [hidden email]:
>"Suspicious tag combination highway=cycleway together with foot=designated, use highway=path"

    This is incorrect. A cycleway tag can be used on a shared path, one which can have a designation for other
    transport modes, such as a Public Right of Way for walkers.
Is it better than
highway=path
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
?

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

Re: JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

voschix
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list


  >"Suspicious tag combination highway=cycleway together with
foot=designated, use highway=path"
I interpreted this as invition to use the "neutral" tagging scheme based on highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=designated + segregted0yes|no which is the tagging scheme that JOSM implicitly promote

     This is incorrect. A cycleway tag can be used on a shared path, one
which can have a designation for other
     transport modes, such as a Public Right of Way for walkers.
I would not say it's is incorrect. It is biased and inviting users to use one of several competing mapping schemes for maping mixed-use foot-cycleways.

Anyway, the most important thing from a routing point of view is to provide all necessary information like legal access, surface, smoothness, width, lit.
And when it comes to detail there are nuances in meaning. For example, the (nearly) identical signs for shared foot-cycleways in in IT and DE have different meaning:
In DE it means "shared" as both cyclists and pedestrians have equal rights and obligations, and there is also the obligation for cyclists to use it  if it runs parallel to a road, just like a bicycle-only way
In IT it is legally essentially a footway on which cyclists are tolerated, but the pedestrians have always priority to the extend that if there are too many pedestrians the cyclists have to dismount, and always have to ride at moderate velocities. These mixed paths are not obligatory for cyclists when there is a parallel road.

OSM tagging does not reflect these finer differences.



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

Re: JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

Mateusz Konieczny-3

6 lip 2019, 22:31 od [hidden email]:
In IT it is legally essentially a footway on which cyclists are tolerated, but the pedestrians have always priority to the extend that if there are too many pedestrians the cyclists have to dismount, and always have to ride at moderate velocities. These mixed paths are not obligatory for cyclists when there is a parallel road.
It sounds like bicycle=yes, at least that is
how such objects are tagged in Poland.
(Now getting rare as traffic sign
combination used for that was deprecated).

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

Re: JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list


sent from a phone

> On 6. Jul 2019, at 23:41, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> It sounds like bicycle=yes, at least that is
> how such objects are tagged in Poland.


at least in Germany there is a difference between bicycle=yes on a footway (it means they must not ride faster than walking speed and give way to pedestrians) and bicycle=designated which means it is a dedicated shared way and pedestrians and cyclists are on the same level.

Or in order words, with yes it is still a footway with an exception for bicycles, while with dedicated it becomes a mixed-use way.

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

Re: JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

Mateusz Konieczny-3
6 lip 2019, 23:52 od [hidden email]:


sent from a phone
On 6. Jul 2019, at 23:41, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

It sounds like bicycle=yes, at least that is
how such objects are tagged in Poland.


at least in Germany there is a difference between bicycle=yes on a footway (it means they must not ride faster than walking speed and give way to pedestrians) and bicycle=designated which means it is a dedicated shared way and pedestrians and cyclists are on the same level.

Or in order words, with yes it is still a footway with an exception for bicycles, while with dedicated it becomes a mixed-use way.
It is the same in Poland, though on
bicycle=designated, foot=designated,
segregated=no pedestrians have priority
over pedestrians

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

Re: JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by dieterdreist



7 lip 2019, 00:07 od [hidden email]:
6 lip 2019, 23:52 od [hidden email]:


sent from a phone
On 6. Jul 2019, at 23:41, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

It sounds like bicycle=yes, at least that is
how such objects are tagged in Poland.


at least in Germany there is a difference between bicycle=yes on a footway (it means they must not ride faster than walking speed and give way to pedestrians) and bicycle=designated which means it is a dedicated shared way and pedestrians and cyclists are on the same level.

Or in order words, with yes it is still a footway with an exception for bicycles, while with dedicated it becomes a mixed-use way.
It is the same in Poland, though on
bicycle=designated, foot=designated,
segregated=no pedestrians have priority
over pedestrians
pedestrians have priority over cyclists, sorry

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

Re: JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

Márton Keleti
I consider using highway=path on urban shared cycle/footways a very bad an confusing practice. A path is an unpaved, one man width little way in a forest or a green area. This is not a by default paved cycleway nor a footway.
I prefer using cycleway for these shared ways, because that is the highest in hierarchy. Path is the lowest, and when looking on a map, seeing a path, I don't think that it could be a well lit and paved cycleway. Many primary roads can be accessed via bicycle and foot too, but still we don't map it as a path, with motor_vehicle=designated, etc.
I think these paths are polluting urban maps and misinforming map users.

Regards,
Márton


Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> ezt írta (időpont: 2019. júl. 7., V 0:10):



7 lip 2019, 00:07 od [hidden email]:
6 lip 2019, 23:52 od [hidden email]:


sent from a phone
On 6. Jul 2019, at 23:41, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

It sounds like bicycle=yes, at least that is
how such objects are tagged in Poland.


at least in Germany there is a difference between bicycle=yes on a footway (it means they must not ride faster than walking speed and give way to pedestrians) and bicycle=designated which means it is a dedicated shared way and pedestrians and cyclists are on the same level.

Or in order words, with yes it is still a footway with an exception for bicycles, while with dedicated it becomes a mixed-use way.
It is the same in Poland, though on
bicycle=designated, foot=designated,
segregated=no pedestrians have priority
over pedestrians
pedestrians have priority over cyclists, sorry
_______________________________________________
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: JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

Tomas Straupis
2019-07-08, pr, 10:53 Márton Keleti rašė:
> I consider using highway=path on urban shared cycle/footways a very bad an
> confusing practice. <...>

  Idea is that path is not only "one man width unpaved" way, but it is
also a way where neither footway, nor cycleway fits because the way is
for both.
  This is how it was for many many years (at least 10 years?). It is
already used in many many places. It does the job perfectly.

--
Tomas

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

Re: JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Márton Keleti
I propose a new sublist for tagging which would only deal with discussions about highway=path.
This way all related discussion will be easily retrievable in the archive and we can refer people to look through past discussions, without this request being rejectable as disproportionate.

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

Re: JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Márton Keleti
I however consider a path to be a generic, almost unbound to physical properties, entity allowing an object to travel from a to b in urban or rural space.  The main point here is, that 'path' _can_ be defined as an unpaved, one man width little way, but it does by no means have this meaning in any context and for each and everyone using that vocabulary.
 
highway=path has been _defined_ in the OSM realm to be as closely a thing described in the OSM wiki, enriched by the outliers you find in the data and can echo back using taginfo or tools alike.  There's no use to redefine the meaning and usage it gained over years.  Especially in combination with tags like footway=sidewalk you may also notice that there's no need to do this.
 
 
Greetings
 
Gesendet: Montag, 08. Juli 2019 um 09:51 Uhr
Von: "Márton Keleti" <[hidden email]>
An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <[hidden email]>
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings
I consider using highway=path on urban shared cycle/footways a very bad an confusing practice. A path is an unpaved, one man width little way in a forest or a green area. This is not a by default paved cycleway nor a footway.
I prefer using cycleway for these shared ways, because that is the highest in hierarchy. Path is the lowest, and when looking on a map, seeing a path, I don't think that it could be a well lit and paved cycleway. Many primary roads can be accessed via bicycle and foot too, but still we don't map it as a path, with motor_vehicle=designated, etc.
I think these paths are polluting urban maps and misinforming map users.
 
Regards,
Márton
 
Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> ezt írta (időpont: 2019. júl. 7., V 0:10):
 
 
 
7 lip 2019, 00:07 od [hidden email]:
6 lip 2019, 23:52 od [hidden email]:
 
 
sent from a phone
On 6. Jul 2019, at 23:41, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
 
It sounds like bicycle=yes, at least that is
how such objects are tagged in Poland.
 
 
at least in Germany there is a difference between bicycle=yes on a footway (it means they must not ride faster than walking speed and give way to pedestrians) and bicycle=designated which means it is a dedicated shared way and pedestrians and cyclists are on the same level.
 
Or in order words, with yes it is still a footway with an exception for bicycles, while with dedicated it becomes a mixed-use way.
It is the same in Poland, though on
bicycle=designated, foot=designated,
segregated=no pedestrians have priority
over pedestrians
pedestrians have priority over cyclists, sorry
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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