what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

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

what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

voschix
In the context of cycling-related tagging there is an issue which I would like to bring up.
This regards the tag combination highway=path and bicycle=yes.

Access tags generally are about legal access (with a few exceptions which do not apply here)
"highway=path" implies "bicycle=yes" (in most jurisdictions) - see the proposed Default-Access-Restriction for all countries.
OpenCycleMap renders a "highway=path" with "bicycle=yes" in the same way as a dedicated cycleway ("highway=cycleway" with our without "bicycle=designated") or a combined foot-cycle-way ("highway=path" with "foot=designated" and "bicycle=designated"). A "highway=path" with no "bicycle=yes" or with "bicycle=no" is shown with a separate rendering which is also used for "highway=footpath" (see https://www.opencyclemap.org/docs/)

The real problem is that many mappers with mountain-bike interest use this to distinguish what they consider paths for MTBs ( "highway=path" with "bicycle=yes") from paths they do not consider MTB suitable by tagging them without "bicycle=yes".

The problem is widespread and has two different consequences
  • different rendering of legally identical situations (a mountain path for hikers with permission also for MTB)
  • identical rendering of two very different things (an MTB path and a city cycleway)

This confusion is not helped by the iD mappers who are invited to fill in the detailed access tables independently of any default values.

This has come up up (again) in the context of a nation-wide attempt in Italy to review all mountain hiking trails of the Italian Alpine Club (CAI) and insert them with details into OSM. CAI mappers are discussing whether to remove during that operation the apparently redundant "bicycle=yes" tagging or not.

I am sure this has been addressed in the passed and I only have not found traces of the old discussions.
I have no proposal on how to proceed, but would like hear your opinions about this.

Volker
Padova, Italy





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

Re: what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

Paul Johnson-3
It's recommended that bicycle and foot get tagged explicitly where there's no obvious global default (like footway, path, cycleway and motorway).

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 09:44 Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:
In the context of cycling-related tagging there is an issue which I would like to bring up.
This regards the tag combination highway=path and bicycle=yes.

Access tags generally are about legal access (with a few exceptions which do not apply here)
"highway=path" implies "bicycle=yes" (in most jurisdictions) - see the proposed Default-Access-Restriction for all countries.
OpenCycleMap renders a "highway=path" with "bicycle=yes" in the same way as a dedicated cycleway ("highway=cycleway" with our without "bicycle=designated") or a combined foot-cycle-way ("highway=path" with "foot=designated" and "bicycle=designated"). A "highway=path" with no "bicycle=yes" or with "bicycle=no" is shown with a separate rendering which is also used for "highway=footpath" (see https://www.opencyclemap.org/docs/)

The real problem is that many mappers with mountain-bike interest use this to distinguish what they consider paths for MTBs ( "highway=path" with "bicycle=yes") from paths they do not consider MTB suitable by tagging them without "bicycle=yes".

The problem is widespread and has two different consequences
  • different rendering of legally identical situations (a mountain path for hikers with permission also for MTB)
  • identical rendering of two very different things (an MTB path and a city cycleway)

This confusion is not helped by the iD mappers who are invited to fill in the detailed access tables independently of any default values.

This has come up up (again) in the context of a nation-wide attempt in Italy to review all mountain hiking trails of the Italian Alpine Club (CAI) and insert them with details into OSM. CAI mappers are discussing whether to remove during that operation the apparently redundant "bicycle=yes" tagging or not.

I am sure this has been addressed in the passed and I only have not found traces of the old discussions.
I have no proposal on how to proceed, but would like hear your opinions about this.

Volker
Padova, Italy




_______________________________________________
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: what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

voschix


On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 17:50, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
It's recommended that bicycle and foot get tagged explicitly where there's no obvious global default (like footway, path, cycleway and motorway).
Where can I find this recommendation ?
I had found only these default access tables: Default-Access-Restriction for all countries.. And these are not even approved.



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

Re: what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by voschix
Volker Schmidt wrote:
> "highway=path" implies "bicycle=yes" (in most jurisdictions) - see the
> proposed Default-Access-Restriction for all countries

That's not a default that I feel enormously comfortable with. Whatever the
wiki might say, "bare" highway=path (no other tags) is often used for little
footpaths across city parks, sidewalks, and so on.

cycle.travel errs on the side of caution and therefore doesn't route along
highway=path unless there's an explicit access tag (or cycle route
relation).

Keeping bicycle=yes on bikes-allowed paths is useful information. If there's
no bicycle= tag, yes, it could mean "bike access is implied by a default
somewhere on the wiki" but it could also mean "this way is tagged
incompletely". Deleting the tags would remove information and make it harder
for routers to deliver real-world routing results. Please keep them.

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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

Re: what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

voschix
 
That's not a default that I feel enormously comfortable with. Whatever the
wiki might say, "bare" highway=path (no other tags) is often used for little
footpaths across city parks, sidewalks, and so on.

cycle.travel errs on the side of caution and therefore doesn't route along
highway=path unless there's an explicit access tag (or cycle route
relation).

Keeping bicycle=yes on bikes-allowed paths is useful information. If there's
no bicycle= tag, yes, it could mean "bike access is implied by a default
somewhere on the wiki" but it could also mean "this way is tagged
incompletely". Deleting the tags would remove information and make it harder
for routers to deliver real-world routing results. Please keep them.

Access tags are about legal access. They do not say anything about the suitability of the highway for the indicated means of transport. We are mixing the two aspects because of incomplete mapping.
In my area the problem is exactly that: many, even difficult hiking paths have been tagged bicycle=yes, so they show up on OpenCycleMap like cycle paths. But when I use routers that do not evaluate the (admittedly, often present) MTB-related additional tags I end up with my touring bike on paths where I have difficulty even to push my bike. I presume that your router would fall into the same trap, or does it evaluate mtb:scale?
I fear the only real answer is a massive push to add physical information to the paths, so that the routers can decide where to go based on path descriptions and not based on second-guessing the intentions of the mappers of the area.

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

Re: what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

marc marc
In reply to this post by voschix
Hello,

Le 11.04.19 à 16:43, Volker Schmidt a écrit :

> OpenCycleMap renders a "highway=path" with "bicycle=yes" in the same way
> as a dedicated cycleway ("highway=cycleway" with our without
> "bicycle=designated") or a combined foot-cycle-way ("highway=path" with
> "foot=designated" and "bicycle=designated"). A "highway=path" with no
> "bicycle=yes" or with "bicycle=no" is shown with a separate rendering
> which is also used for "highway=footpath"

look like a bug/feature in a OpenCycleMap style.
as you said, in a lot of country bicycle=yes is already
the default value for highway=path
highway=path" + "bicycle=yes is not better than highway=path
but to use each country's default values on a global rendering,
you probably need a preprocessor which OpenCycleMap maybe don't want.

> The real problem is that many mappers with mountain-bike interest use
> this to distinguish what they consider paths for MTBs ( "highway=path"
> with "bicycle=yes") from paths they do not consider MTB suitable by
> tagging them without "bicycle=yes".

look like wrong. some mtb tag exist (including the misued mtb=*,
misused because I doubt there are so many signs saying that
a path is forbidden to mtb's.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=mtb
what's a path not MTB suitable ?

> This confusion is not helped by the iD mappers who are invited to fill
> in the detailed access tables independently of any default values.

it would be a good suggestion to suggest to iD to improve the interface
in order to ask users to fill in the real access restrictions.
I had seen a path between the street and a shopping mall with horse=no
because iD had asked the user if it was allowed, and he considered
that it should not be ridden :) while there was obviously no access
restriction, only the feeling because the editor ask it.

> This has come up up (again) in the context of a nation-wide attempt in
> Italy to review all mountain hiking trails of the Italian Alpine Club
> (CAI) and insert them with details into OSM.

add mtb: related tag.

> remove during that operation the apparently redundant
> "bicycle=yes" tagging or not.

it seem a good idea.

> how to proceed

after the general discussion here, it is up to the Italian community
to decide. This can be done at the same time as adding the mtb
information or someone can offer a mass edition in Italy
if the local Italian community wishes so.

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

Re: what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by voschix
On 11/04/2019 17:13, Volker Schmidt wrote:


On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 17:50, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
It's recommended that bicycle and foot get tagged explicitly where there's no obvious global default (like footway, path, cycleway and motorway).
Where can I find this recommendation ?
I had found only these default access tables: Default-Access-Restriction for all countries.. And these are not even approved.

I'd treat those with a very big pinch of salt, if the "United Kingdom" ones are anything to go by.  Problems with the UK table include:

  • No allowance for the "just not mapped yet" case - a footpath on private land may very well be private.  Paths mapped from imagery only likely won't have access tags because the mapper simply doesn't know.
  • "track" and "service" are missing altogether.
  • The UK has three different legal systems, not one.  In the main table Scotland (not for the first time) has been ignored.
  • In England and Wales, no distinction between "legal right of way in " and "you're allowed to, but no legal right of way" (English laws are weird).
  • No mention of CROW Act land (another odd legal case).

However it does sound like you (Volker) agree with Paul (and I) here - it's good to explicitly use access tags if it's not obvious.

It'd be good to get back to having access tags just describing legal access, but "highway=path" is a problem here - where used, it needs what what normally be an access tag to say what sort of path it is, rather than other modifiers (width, surface, tracktype, etc.)

Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by voschix
Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I presume that your router would fall into the same trap, or does it
> evaluate mtb:scale?

Of course it does. :)

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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

Re: what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by voschix



Apr 11, 2019, 4:43 PM by [hidden email]:
In the context of cycling-related tagging there is an issue which I would like to bring up.
This regards the tag combination highway=path and bicycle=yes.

Access tags generally are about legal access (with a few exceptions which do not apply here)
"highway=path" implies "bicycle=yes" (in most jurisdictions) - see the proposed Default-Access-Restriction for all countries.
bicycle=yes means that cyclists are allowed to use given path.

In absence of other tags it may be also considered as a hint that cyclists can
comfortably use this path, though it would be better to explicitly tag surface
and other relevant info
OpenCycleMap renders a "highway=path" with "bicycle=yes" in the same way as a dedicated cycleway ("highway=cycleway" with our without "bicycle=designated") or a combined foot-cycle-way ("highway=path" with "foot=designated" and "bicycle=designated"). A "highway=path" with no "bicycle=yes" or with "bicycle=no" is shown with a separate rendering which is also used for "highway=footpath" (see https://www.opencyclemap.org/docs/)
OpenCycleMap is also not supporting oneway:bicycle=no, I would not use it as a documentation
of tags
The real problem is that many mappers with mountain-bike interest use this to distinguish what they consider paths for MTBs ( "highway=path" with "bicycle=yes") from paths they do not consider MTB suitable by tagging them without "bicycle=yes".
That is quite poor idea and data collected in this way is much less useful than it could be.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale sounds like a better idea, especially
as some people may be interested in extreme difficulty and some in casual.

Note that in cases where they remove bicycle=yes for paths where people are allowed to cycle
or add bicycle=yes where they are not legally allowed to cycle - they map incorrectly and damage
data.
CAI mappers are discussing whether to remove during that operation the apparently redundant "bicycle=yes" tagging or not.
I would keep them. There are tables with default access on OSM Wiki but it ignores that foot=yes/
bicycle=yes on path are useful indicators that it is not a private path with forbidden entry.

As long as correct this tags are useful.
I am sure this has been addressed in the passed and I only have not found traces of the old discussions.
I have no proposal on how to proceed, but would like hear your opinions about this.
Do not remove bicycle=yes remotely just because it is on a path, use mtb:scale for tagging paths
interesting for mtbers rather than misusing bicycle=yes for marking "interesting mtb route".

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

Re: what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Paul Johnson-3


sent from a phone

On 11. Apr 2019, at 17:48, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

It's recommended that bicycle and foot get tagged explicitly where there's no obvious global default (like footway, path, cycleway and motorway).


+1, please do not remove “apparently redundant” access tags.

IMHO we should try to educate the mtb users to use specific tags.

Cheers, Martin 

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

Re: what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by marc marc


sent from a phone

On 11. Apr 2019, at 19:45, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:

look like wrong. some mtb tag exist (including the misued mtb=*,
misused because I doubt there are so many signs saying that
a path is forbidden to mtb's.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=mtb
what's a path not MTB suitable ?


The main page for access tagging has no hint about mtb: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access and I did not find any documentation supporting the idea that “mtb” would be a specific legal access restriction for mountain bikes, can you point me to something? 

Cheers, Martin 

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

Re: what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

voschix
@Mateusz

I just got alerted that you added a paragraph on the wiki Page OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions
in which you state:

" Note that explicit tagging of access repeating what following tables imply may be still useful. For example bare highway=path may mean either "surveyed and all defaults apply" or "mapped from LIDAR, not surveyed, may be private". In contrast highway=path + foot=yes + bicycle=yes is more clear what is its meaning."

I do not agree with that statement. If highway=path has the default implied access values foot=yes + bicycle=yes (and horse=yes) then that means that an armchair mapper should add access=unknown to the tagging.

BTW foot=yes + bicycle=yes and horse=yes may also be interpreted as "iD mapper has ticked all fields"


Virus-free. www.avast.com

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

Re: what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

Andy Townsend
On 12/04/2019 14:24, Volker Schmidt wrote:
@Mateusz

I just got alerted that you added a paragraph on the wiki Page OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions
in which you state:

" Note that explicit tagging of access repeating what following tables imply may be still useful. For example bare highway=path may mean either "surveyed and all defaults apply" or "mapped from LIDAR, not surveyed, may be private". In contrast highway=path + foot=yes + bicycle=yes is more clear what is its meaning."

That addition from Mateusz seems reasonable to me - he's just alerting people to how things might get mapped, and how to make things clearer.  Also "may still be useful" is not telling people to add e.g. "motor_vehicle=yes" to all primary roads (something unlikely to be useful).


I do not agree with that statement. If highway=path has the default implied access values foot=yes + bicycle=yes (and horse=yes) then that means that an armchair mapper should add access=unknown to the tagging.

It doesn't matter what you think J Random Mapper _should_ do; what they _actually_ do is what is important (and I'm someone who uses access=unknown more than most).

Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by voschix
"an armchair mapper should add access=unknown to the tagging"

I certainly don't do this when mapping from aerial imagery, and
neither of the editors that I've used (ID and JOSM) have suggest
adding "access=unknown" to a newly mapped path.

My understanding is that highway=path is rather problematic if there
are no additional tags, because it's not clear if all paths are open
to bicycles or horses. See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy

And https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath says:

"highway=path is a generic path, either multi-use or unspecified
usage, open to all non-motorized vehicles and not intended for
motorized vehicles unless tagged so separately. The path may have any
type of surface."

"This includes walking and hiking trails, bike trails and paths, horse
and stock trails, mountain bike trails as well as combinations of the
above."

"This tag is used for paths for which all and any of highway=footway,
highway=cycleway and highway=bridleway would be inappropriate or
inadequate (or simply not sufficient), but which are nonetheless
usable for travel or navigation. They might be not intended for any
particular use, or intended for several different uses. Intended uses
can be indicated with the various access keys; e.g.,
bicycle=designated and foot=designated."


On 4/12/19, Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> @Mateusz
>
> I just got alerted that you added a paragraph on the wiki Page
> OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions)>
> in which you state:
>
> " Note that explicit tagging of access repeating what following tables
> imply may be still useful. For example bare highway
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=path
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath> may mean either
> "surveyed and all defaults apply" or "mapped from LIDAR, not surveyed, may
> be private". In contrast highway
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=path
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath> + foot
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:foot>=yes
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:foot%3Dyes> + bicycle
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle>=yes
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Dyes> is more clear what
> is its meaning."
>
> I do not agree with that statement. If highway
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=path
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath> has the default
> implied access values foot <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:foot>=
> yes <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:foot%3Dyes> + bicycle
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle>=yes
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Dyes> (and horse=yes)
> then that means that an armchair mapper should add access=unknown to the
> tagging.
>
> BTW foot <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:foot>=yes
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:foot%3Dyes> + bicycle
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle>=yes
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Dyes> and horse=yes may
> also be interpreted as "iD mapper has ticked all fields"
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>

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

Re: what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by voschix



Apr 12, 2019, 3:24 PM by [hidden email]:
@Mateusz

I just got alerted that you added a paragraph on the wiki Page OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions
in which you state:

" Note that explicit tagging of access repeating what following tables imply may be still useful. For example bare highway=path may mean either "surveyed and all defaults apply" or "mapped from LIDAR, not surveyed, may be private". In contrast highway=path + foot=yes + bicycle=yes is more clear what is its meaning."

I do not agree with that statement. If highway=path has the default implied access values foot=yes + bicycle=yes (and horse=yes) then that means that an armchair mapper should add access=unknown to the tagging.
(1) access=unknown is very rarely used in way that you propose (and no editor is
encouraging such use)

(2) it wpuld anyway not change that
"explicit tagging of access repeating what following tables imply may be still useful"
and that access tags should not be removed just because it matches what is currently
default according to this wiki page


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

Re: what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

voschix
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg


"an armchair mapper should add access=unknown to the tagging"

I certainly don't do this when mapping from aerial imagery, and
neither of the editors that I've used (ID and JOSM) have suggest
adding "access=unknown" to a newly mapped path.

Thinking about this, I would say it's wrong. When you armchair-map a motorway and are using recent satellite photos you cn see crs on the road.hence you can rightly assume that it is a motorway with the default legal access values of the country.
What you cannot do is make a statement about the legal access right for bicycles on that motorway. (at least in the USA). For that you need additional information.

At the other end of the scale is the path which in many countries has the default legal access for humans, bicycles, and horse riders.
To decide on access rights here is a lot trickier, when armchair mapping. You can use GPX tracks, where available, to see if anyone has used the path, but you will have difficulty to distinguish between the three means of transport. Only if you have street-level images can you expect to correctly deduce the legal usage rights.

My understanding is that highway=path is rather problematic if there
are no additional tags, because it's not clear if all paths are open
to bicycles or horses. See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy
This page is not terribly useful, a it mixes legal and physical access limitations.

Conclusion: there are highways that are more suitable for armchair mapping of access rights. path, footway, track, and service are certainly problematic from that point of view.

Going back to my starting point, I see two things that we should try to push for
1) convince Andy Allan to change the rendering of OCM so that  a path with bicycle=yes will not be rendered any more in the same way a s a cycleway. It should rendered as a path for pedestrians.
2) we may strongly encourage the use of mtb=yes|permissive for paths we are shure that they are open to MTB, possibly with the mtb:scale values as well.

Virus-free. www.avast.com

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

Re: what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

Greg Troxel-2
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> writes:

> "an armchair mapper should add access=unknown to the tagging"
>
> I certainly don't do this when mapping from aerial imagery, and
> neither of the editors that I've used (ID and JOSM) have suggest
> adding "access=unknown" to a newly mapped path.

I only add access=unknown when even when being local and visiting the
access situation is unclear.  I view it as a clue to other mappers that
work needs to be done.

> My understanding is that highway=path is rather problematic if there
> are no additional tags, because it's not clear if all paths are open
> to bicycles or horses. See

Well, it's certainly less precise than having horse/bicycle explicitly,
but I don't think people should refrain from adding a highway=path
because they don't know about horses or bicycles.  One always has to
view default access (for other than legal roads) with at least a tiny
bit of skepticism.

If you mean "given a highway=path without horse/bicycle tags, it is an
improvement to the map to add them, even if they are yes", I agree.

> And https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath says:
>
> "highway=path is a generic path, either multi-use or unspecified
> usage, open to all non-motorized vehicles and not intended for
> motorized vehicles unless tagged so separately. The path may have any
> type of surface."

I think the 'open to all' is a bit much.  I would read that as "unless
tagged explicitly, the default assumption is foot=yes bicycle=yes
horse=yes".  Which is also true on highway=tertiary, for example.  So
it's not so much an assertion that to be a path it must be open to all,
but a statement that when interpreting a path, if there are no access
tags for bicycle/horse, then a router should assume they are implicitly
yes.

> "This includes walking and hiking trails, bike trails and paths, horse
> and stock trails, mountain bike trails as well as combinations of the
> above."

sure

> "This tag is used for paths for which all and any of highway=footway,
> highway=cycleway and highway=bridleway would be inappropriate or
> inadequate (or simply not sufficient), but which are nonetheless
> usable for travel or navigation. They might be not intended for any
> particular use, or intended for several different uses. Intended uses
> can be indicated with the various access keys; e.g.,
> bicycle=designated and foot=designated."

This is where it gets to be a non-useful distinction with multiple
schools of thought.

One school of thought is that "highway=footway" has exactly the same
semantics as "highway=path foot=designated".  The default render more or
less works this way.  Note that both leave bicycle and horse as
implicit.  I think pretty much everybody agrees with this, even if they
disagree on which is preferred.

Another school of thought, while not disagreeing with the above, says
that highway=footway means in addition a city/town kind of path that is
typically paved.  This school says that a trail in the woods, or
anything that isn't super well maintained, should be highway=path.  (I
have had nearby mappers ask me to follow this distinction because there
are "trail maps" that include path but not footway, because we do not
have trail tags.  Or if we do, it's path!)

But all of this does not bear on the horse/bicycle issue.


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

Re: what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

Greg Troxel-2
In reply to this post by Richard Fairhurst
Richard Fairhurst <[hidden email]> writes:

> Volker Schmidt wrote:
>> "highway=path" implies "bicycle=yes" (in most jurisdictions) - see the
>> proposed Default-Access-Restriction for all countries
>
> That's not a default that I feel enormously comfortable with. Whatever the
> wiki might say, "bare" highway=path (no other tags) is often used for little
> footpaths across city parks, sidewalks, and so on.
>
> cycle.travel errs on the side of caution and therefore doesn't route along
> highway=path unless there's an explicit access tag (or cycle route
> relation).
>
> Keeping bicycle=yes on bikes-allowed paths is useful information. If there's
> no bicycle= tag, yes, it could mean "bike access is implied by a default
> somewhere on the wiki" but it could also mean "this way is tagged
> incompletely". Deleting the tags would remove information and make it harder
> for routers to deliver real-world routing results. Please keep them.

Strongly seconded.  Richard has it 100% right here, and has explained it
very well.  I would consider removing bicycle=yes from highway=path to
be damaging and antisocial.

As far as path having some legal definition of access rules, I would say
that's very far off base in the US, as paths are usually on places where
the property owner (even if the government) can set rules, as opposed to
streets which are owned by the government where access is controlled by
statute, more or less.  It is very normal for paths in conservation land
in the forest to allow only foot travel, or also bicycle, or also horse
and bicycle both.

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

Re: what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

voschix
I am not happy with the assumption that a path on the map without indication that it is open to the public is better than not having it on the map at all.
This is only true if the former is labelled as such (access=unknown). Otherwise its useless information. Think about it: You wouldn't think for a moment about inserting a road (for cars) without knowing it is open for the intended traffic, would you?
I am frequently using routing for bicycle and, unfortunately, I note that there are many more access status errors on paths/footways/tracks in the map than for roads for motorized traffic.
If we as OSM community want to make use of our potentially better coverage for foot and bicycle traffic, then we need to improve our mapping quality for minor highways.

Another thing:
Greg writes:
" "highway=footway" has exactly the same
semantics as "highway=path foot=designated". ...Note that both leave bicycle and horse as
implicit"
I think this is wrong: highway=footway excludes bicycle, or at least the footway wiki page is misleading, as the photo shows clearly a footway with a traffic sign, that explicitly excludes all other types of traffic.

Virus-free. www.avast.com

On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 at 18:41, Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> wrote:
Richard Fairhurst <[hidden email]> writes:

> Volker Schmidt wrote:
>> "highway=path" implies "bicycle=yes" (in most jurisdictions) - see the
>> proposed Default-Access-Restriction for all countries
>
> That's not a default that I feel enormously comfortable with. Whatever the
> wiki might say, "bare" highway=path (no other tags) is often used for little
> footpaths across city parks, sidewalks, and so on.
>
> cycle.travel errs on the side of caution and therefore doesn't route along
> highway=path unless there's an explicit access tag (or cycle route
> relation).
>
> Keeping bicycle=yes on bikes-allowed paths is useful information. If there's
> no bicycle= tag, yes, it could mean "bike access is implied by a default
> somewhere on the wiki" but it could also mean "this way is tagged
> incompletely". Deleting the tags would remove information and make it harder
> for routers to deliver real-world routing results. Please keep them.

Strongly seconded.  Richard has it 100% right here, and has explained it
very well.  I would consider removing bicycle=yes from highway=path to
be damaging and antisocial.

As far as path having some legal definition of access rules, I would say
that's very far off base in the US, as paths are usually on places where
the property owner (even if the government) can set rules, as opposed to
streets which are owned by the government where access is controlled by
statute, more or less.  It is very normal for paths in conservation land
in the forest to allow only foot travel, or also bicycle, or also horse
and bicycle both.

_______________________________________________
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: what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

Warin
On 14/04/19 01:42, Volker Schmidt wrote:
I am not happy with the assumption that a path on the map without indication that it is open to the public is better than not having it on the map at all.

If I am navigating using a paper map then that road/path is usefull information. If it is not on the map then I still don't know if I have access but additionally I don't know where it goes or how far I have come.

So even when the access is not known having thepath/road there is usefull to me.





This is only true if the former is labelled as such (access=unknown). Otherwise its useless information. Think about it: You wouldn't think for a moment about inserting a road (for cars) without knowing it is open for the intended traffic, would you?
I am frequently using routing for bicycle and, unfortunately, I note that there are many more access status errors on paths/footways/tracks in the map than for roads for motorized traffic.
If we as OSM community want to make use of our potentially better coverage for foot and bicycle traffic, then we need to improve our mapping quality for minor highways.

Another thing:
Greg writes:
" "highway=footway" has exactly the same
semantics as "highway=path foot=designated". ...Note that both leave bicycle and horse as
implicit"
I think this is wrong: highway=footway excludes bicycle, or at least the footway wiki page is misleading, as the photo shows clearly a footway with a traffic sign, that explicitly excludes all other types of traffic.

Virus-free. www.avast.com

On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 at 18:41, Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> wrote:
Richard Fairhurst <[hidden email]> writes:

> Volker Schmidt wrote:
>> "highway=path" implies "bicycle=yes" (in most jurisdictions) - see the
>> proposed Default-Access-Restriction for all countries
>
> That's not a default that I feel enormously comfortable with. Whatever the
> wiki might say, "bare" highway=path (no other tags) is often used for little
> footpaths across city parks, sidewalks, and so on.
>
> cycle.travel errs on the side of caution and therefore doesn't route along
> highway=path unless there's an explicit access tag (or cycle route
> relation).
>
> Keeping bicycle=yes on bikes-allowed paths is useful information. If there's
> no bicycle= tag, yes, it could mean "bike access is implied by a default
> somewhere on the wiki" but it could also mean "this way is tagged
> incompletely". Deleting the tags would remove information and make it harder
> for routers to deliver real-world routing results. Please keep them.

Strongly seconded.  Richard has it 100% right here, and has explained it
very well.  I would consider removing bicycle=yes from highway=path to
be damaging and antisocial.

As far as path having some legal definition of access rules, I would say
that's very far off base in the US, as paths are usually on places where
the property owner (even if the government) can set rules, as opposed to
streets which are owned by the government where access is controlled by
statute, more or less.  It is very normal for paths in conservation land
in the forest to allow only foot travel, or also bicycle, or also horse
and bicycle both.

_______________________________________________
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
12