Talk:Proposed features/Cycle and Footway

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
  • We have those in the UK as well. OSM practice is to tag this as a cycleway: pedestrian use of cycleways is assumed unless expressly stated otherwise in a separate tag. So I'm not sure there's a need for a new value here. ---Richard 16:34, 3 May 2007 (BST)
cycleway:pedestrian is not listet on the features map. Are there more 'hidden' tags like this? I ask, because I've got more problems with cycleways, like the german "Fahrradstraßen" (literally cycle roads), cycleways next to other roads and so on. At the moment I plan to create a complete overview of all cycle related stuff. --Kumakyoo 11:03, 4 May 2007 (BST)
No, I was using the colon as a piece of punctuation to explain ("id est"), rather than "cycleway=pedestrian". :) --Richard 11:05, 4 May 2007 (BST)
Well in Germany it's not allowed that pedestrians do use cycleways (maybe only true for the ones marked with the blue signs), but anyway they do. But it could make sense to use the cycleway-tag to cover this, wouldn't it? --Kumakyoo 13:16, 4 May 2007 (BST)
Well, if highway=cycleway is defined as "pedestrians and bikes permitted", German cycleways are simply different and need to be tagged differently (i.e. highway=cycleway;foot=no). -- 3247 21:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The page highway=cycleway clearly says that cycleways are for bicycles only, but this restriction can be modified with access. --PetskuH 13:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Then read the page again, in the table on the right it says: Implies: foot=yes --Eimai 12:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The matter was discussed as part of the proposal for path, and highway=cycleway wiki page was modified (28 May 2008) so that cycleway implies foot=yes. Path was approved and a proposed rendering is discussed here. Path feature probably affects this proposal. I actually don't care whether a cycleway implies foot=yes or foot=no as long as everybody agrees. --PetskuH 18:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Cycleway wiki page still inconsistently claims that highway=cycleway "...implies that only bicycle traffic is allowed." --PetskuH 18:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
No it doesn't. To quote from highway=cycleway: " mainly or exclusively for bicycles." (emphasis mine). --Hawke 17:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This is because the page has been changed once again. Eimai changed it (22 June 2008) to say "This implies that only bicycle and pedestrian traffic is allowed." You can use the history function to see when the page was changed and how. The examples in that page are still inconsistent with the rest of the page and the cycleway picture on the right side is a Finnish one that implies foot=no. --PetskuH 19:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's because I was quoting a different part of the page than the one to which you were referring. I did look at the history (and even at Eimai's edit), but somehow missed that specific change. My mistake there. I've updated the text to be consistent, I think. --Hawke 20:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that explains it. The text seems to be fine now. --PetskuH 20:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • There was an interesting suggestion on the mailing list from Andy Allan that I think very workable MikeCollinson 15:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC) : "I've been asked by a cycling group how they should be marking shared vs segregated, so how about
highway=cycleway, cycleway=shared - both bikes and pedestrians  sharing the same path, common in the UK [and Sweden]. 
        Has the blue sign with the bike over the pedestrians.
highway=cycleway, cycleway=segregated - the path has a line down the middle, cyclists on one side, pedestrians on the other.
highway=cycleway, cycleway=cycleonly - bikes only, like the default in Germany
  • When I saw this proposal at first I thourght it ment where you get a wide path split by a white line and over differntly coloured with tarmack, and 1 side is a footpath and the other is a cycleway. It would be good to have 1 tag to cover this as they are 2 highways rather than 1 with extra access rights. And it would save having a 2 ways created. I think it currently works to tag the way as its highest status of highway, as usually lesser means of transport are then allowed down there. =no tags can then tweak it to get it correct. (e.g on a unclassified you don't have to add foot=yes, bike=yes etc as it can be asumed, unless it is stated otherwise). Ben 03:42, 5 May 2007 (BST)
I'm really confused about how to map cycleways next to roads. My first instinct was to map them on their own, but then a local streetmapper (who is like me a newby) tolled me, that she heard, that they should be mapped as tags of the road. Then I found an example of a road here in the wiki where I'm tolled to use seperate ways for the cycleway and the road. Now your statement sounds again like using tags. As this gets oftopic I've discussed this issue on a separate page.
Anyway, the assumption that pedestrians are allowed on cycleways is (at least in Germany) almost always wrong. Anyway, are these assumptions written down somewhere? I think of an table like "unclassified" assumes foot=yes, bike=yes, motorcar=yes, truck=no (or what ever is true). This would be very helpful for newbies. --Kumakyoo 16:25, 7 May 2007 (BST)
There are more than this two types. I've started collecting them on User:Kumakyoo/Fahrrad2. This page is still under construction yet. --Kumakyoo 16:25, 7 May 2007 (BST)
  • I really miss this tag: in Sweden, atleast where I live, most cycleways allow pedestrians aswell. I don't like assuming that highway=cycleway means foot=yes, explicit things are often missed out by people, so I always tag cycleways foot=yes aswell, but since its so common for me to tag it I think it deserves its own tag. sandos 23:30, 25 May 2007 (BST)
  • I'd prefer to see this as a more general-purpose tag, something like "highway=trail, foot=yes, bicycle=yes". It may be better to substitute route for highway or path for trail (route=path, foot=yes, bicycle=yes). "trail" or "path" gives a non-specific term for cycleway/bridleway/footway, and "route" removes the access implications of the term "highway" (around here at least, many cycleways/etc. are permissive access so "highway" is not correct) --Hawke 08:16, 10 June 2007 (BST)
  • In the UK there are 'shared faciltities' where bikes and pedestrians use their common sense, and segregated facilities where there is a demaration (white line or barrier/kerb)and one side is for pedestrians and the other for cyclists. Sometimes the cycle lane is again divided into two one-way directions. In time we are really going to bite-the-bullet at some point and introduce the concept of 'Lanes', where this lane is for pedestrians, and that one is for cyclists, this is for buses and this one is for any vehicles and this one is for cars with 2+ occupants etc etc. I suggest we don't try to resolve the Lanes issue as part of this proposal Peter Miller 6:31 12 June 2007 (BST).
  • It is right that pedestrians are not allowed to use a way with the sign 240, but there is a rule in Germany which says that sign 240 is only allowed if pedestrian have theier own way, so highway=cycleway always implies that pedestrian can use this way or another way which is near the cycleway. The german rule is: "Auf Straßen ohne Gehweg und Seitenstreifen dürfen Radwege alleine nicht gekennzeichnet werden. Hier kann sich aber die Kennzeichnung als gemeinsamer Fuß- und Radweg (Zeichen 240) anbieten." In general you can say: If there is no footway beside the cycleway in Germany, the cycleway must be tagged with sign 240 or sign 241. --KartoGrapHiti 13:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated

or: highway=cycleway foot=designated (this is explicitly described in the main page as incorrect, because "on the maps this path is either rendered as cycleway or footway, leading the opposite group of mapusers astray.")


I’m going to move this proposal to „Obsoleted feature suggestions“ as we can tag this as highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated – unless someone opposes. --Tordanik 20:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)