Talk:Proposed features/cycleroad

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Is this really needed as a new highway tag? Why can't you use highway=residential access=no access=bicycle? Or just use the highway=cycleway tag? --Eimai 12:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it really is, but here in Germany these roads have some more exceptions, so the roads must have a bunch extra tags maxspeed etc.. Also if there are motor vehicles allowed by an extra sign cycles would have the right of way, i don't know if this is possible with the existing tags. Just using highway=cycleway wouldn't suit, because the hole road condition (width ...) is like if it would be a normal street for cars. --Patzi 07:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I think highway=residential motorcar=no bicycle=designated would suit perfect. --TEL0000 23:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Not always the cycleroad looks like a residential (see first image in gallery on proposal page)
Not always motorcar=no is correct... (second image)
but the sign cycleroad is always present
living_street is also a tag corresponding to a sign instead of highway=residential maxspeed=7 foot=designated ...
a new tag makes it easier to do special rendering different from residential or cycleway and to do better routing preferring normal residentials instead of cycleroad/motorcar=yes ... for the cycleroads in image 2 and 3 I just use cycleway, but that looks bad on renderers and is not correct as residential would not be correct, too...
--Mueck 01:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't create new highway=* values just because we have a special access restriction, especially if we can use existing tagging schema. Saying it will be easier to do special rendering is not a valid reason. To be sure that you identify this type of access correctly, you could also propose a special tag like access=cycleroad or something similar. A residential road is still residential when it becomes a cycleroad. Otherwise we repeat the same mistake as highway=living_street which is very confusing and incorrectly used in some countries. (e.g. used for service alleys) -- Pieren 09:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

no need

Other vehicles than bicycles may use cycle roads only when permitted by an additional sign.
  • additional access-restrictions also possible on 'normal' cycleways (e.g. access=acricultural is a very normal case)

All vehicles may only drive at moderate speed ("mäßige Geschwindigkeit", interpreted as at most 30 km/h by courts).
  • this fact is also given, if a cycleway gives access to motorcars ( §41 II 5 --> moderate speed + maxspeed=walk )

Cyclists may drive side by side. 
  • thats also allowed on normal roads ( §2 IV )

so there is no need for this new highway-value at all --Cbm 09:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


From highway=cycleway:
"The highway=cycleway is the primary way to indicate that the used way is mainly or exclusively for bicycles."

From highway=residential:
"This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas but which are not a classified or unclassified highway. See also:

  • highway=living_street - a street where pedestrians have priority over cars, children can play on the street, maximum speed is low. "

For pedestrians have priority over cars there exists another tag, so residential is "false" for this cases.
So if bicycles have priority over cars, residential should also be "false".

cycleroad also is mainly or exclusively for bicycles, so cycleway is better than residential.
Also the sign "cycleway" looks similar to the sign for "cycleroad" and has similar contents.

But a cycleroad is a road, not a way...
Like living_street is also a road, not a footway...
(Also track is not tagged as highway=road agriculture=designated or something like this...)

So cycleroad fills the gap between residential and cycleway as living_street fills the gap between footway and residential: cycleroad is a logical extension of the existing tagging system.

--Mueck 12:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good example why we need a special tag for this. the new tag doesn't only describe the usage or the look of the cycleroad, it combines it and also includes special rights for the cyclists we can't describe at the moment. --Patzi 16:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
what is the fact thats makes a cycleroad special? it's just a normal (big-build) cycleway!--Cbm 22:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
One fact is that it is build like a normal road (wide etc.) also I've never seen a normal cycleway where cars are allowed. And if cars would be allowed (by extra sign) you can't see from the existing tags that the cyclists are the one that have the right of way. Right now you have two choices highway=cycleway + motorcar=yes + motorcycle=yes + ... + maxspeed=30 -> problem everyone would think this is e normal cycleway that is not really suitable for motor vehicles (wide, surface etc) but allowed and nothing about who has the right of way. The other one is highway=residential + access=no + bicycle=yes + motorcar=yes + ... -> you can't see that there motor vehicles are only allowed and that the street is mainly for cyclists (right of way). If you can tell me another solution, do it. But maybe it would be a solution to have different types of highway=cycleway. I think we could use the existing cycleway=* tag for this so that one could use highway=cycleway + cycleway=cycleroad instead of a new highway=cycleroad. Also we could use an extra type tag (type=cycleroad). So we wouldn't need to have an extra highway type and the normal renderer and router can use it like a normal cycleway the type would be optional. --Patzi 00:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
width=* would say the same to motorcaars, if the way is wide enough to use.--Cbm 10:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The tag highway=cycleway is good. If it is tagged with motorcar=yes I think it is really suitable for motor vehicles, because in Germany cycleways and cycleroads defaults to motor_vehicle=no. By law cycleways and cycleroads are identical. --Phobie 01:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The tag highway=residential is not a real street type. It's like a shortcut for highway=unclassified + general_way_usage=residential. I think it is better to draw a landuse=residential polygon. --Phobie 01:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
To "bicycle=yes ... you can't see": How about bicycle=designated? --Phobie 01:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The tag cycleway=cycleroad just look evil. cycleway=* is only for byways. --Phobie 01:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
cycleway=road should be just the logical "increase" to lane and track. So lane < track < road. Sounds usefull for me --Cbm 18:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not "only for byways". cycleway=opposite says something of the street itself and cycleway=lane is about white paint lines or other road colouring. --Cartinus 09:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The tag type=* is too generic and should only be used in relations! --Phobie 01:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I recommend highway=cycleway (implies access=no + bicycle=designated + maxspeed=30) and highway=* + bicycle=designated (implies maxspeed=30) --Phobie 01:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


I'm thinking whether it would be better to introduce a "highway_type" tag which can include country-specific values to mark special highways that are tagged with a special sign (like express roads, motorways, living streets, cycleroads and much more).

I think a lot of countries have special roads that introduce some specific rules on them (like driving at walking speed, pedestrians can use the entire road width, cars are only allowed when they're destination traffic etc). Rather than tagging each of those roads with the entire access rules it makes sense to put this in a "highway_type" tag which are defined at country level and can then be translated to the specific access rules. After all, these traffic rules can easily change.

On first view I think this makes much more sense than introducing new highway=* values for each kind of road that only exists in one country (say we could have a "highway=road_reserved_for_agricultural_vehicles_pedestrians_cyclists_and_horse_riders" in Belgium if we go that way). That way the highway tag values stays a small set that everyone understands.

On the other hand, routers would need to know the full set of rules so perhaps a highway_type would be just covering up the fact that the people making the rendering rules just won't spend time getting all country specific roads right.

Other opinions on this? --Eimai 13:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If renderers would respect access=*-tags we would have no problem here! Routing-programs have no problems with highway=cycleway + access=no + bicycle=designated + motorcar=yes + width=4. Mapnik should just draw blue dots on a white line and Osmarender should draw a small green line on a bigger white line. Anyways a highway:type=cycleroad might be useful as a reference. --Phobie 17:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This is exactly what the designation=* tag should be used for. --Richard 10:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Argument in Support

I'm in favor of this proposal as these are treated as more major than residential roads, less major than tertiary, simply with additional restrictions on cars. Intersecting streets do not generally have priority over a bicycle boulevard unless it's a more major way, and bicycle boulevards typically have turn restriction from which bicycles are exempted that make using a bicycle boulevard impossible except for local access. These were often previously residential ways, but have since had stop signs removed and possibly signals installed to favor the bicycle boulevard, and obstructions installed to discourage or prohibit through motor traffic.

These are a very common fixture in Vancouver, Portland, and Eugene, very likely more places. Paul Johnson 05:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Cyclestreets are trafficzones and does not end on junctions. If you change the highway-type at the traffic_sign, the renderer will have no priority problems. See this example of a cyclestreet in Kiel! --Phobie 11:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Bike boulevard instead?

I think this tag is needed. None of the existing tags really define what a bike boulevard/cycleroad is, as it often has legal meaning. However, I wonder if the term "bicycle boulevard" might be a more appropriate term. I cite wikipedia:Bicycle_boulevard —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoreyBurger (talkcontribs) 06:20, 10. Jun. 2009


I'd go for highway=residential + cycleway=cyclestreet. "Residential" because that was what it probably was before it was converted, and that's what it mostly looks like, and because that way it'll get rendered. Cyclestreet because that's better English than cycleroad. I suspect there aren't enough of them in the world for renderers/routers/users to make a priority of distinguishing them, so the addition of other tags (eg motorcar=destination, maxspeed=30) will probably remain necessary anyway.--RichardMann 08:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

highway=cyclestreet sounds good but it should not imply its default access tags (access=no + bicycle=designated). A highway=cyclestreet + motorcar=yes would be confusing. --Phobie 11:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
as already pointed out above not all of them are or have been residential roads, so I oppose the idea of adding just a tag to residential. The idea of having a supplementary tag seems neither ideal to me, as generally cars are not allowed but can be allowed by additional signs (at least in German jurisdiction). That's (together with the arguments above like different right-of-way, different maxspeed, etc.) the reason why I support a completely new highway-class. I don't care though if it will be called highway=cycleroad or highway=cyclestreet. -- Dieterdreist 22:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


Cyclestreet is probably a better name because street seems to emphasize that buildings or other features are accessible from that way, which means it must be accessible by car. Road emphasizes the traffic function which makes it easy to confuse cycleroad with cycleway. AFAIK no building may have its main entrance at a cycleway that is not part of a regular road. The current definition also does not clearly show the functional difference between a cycleway and the proposed highway type. An alternative definition for highway=cyclestreet (or cycleroad or bicycle_boulevard) could be:

A cyclestreet is a road in a residential (or similarly built-up) area that functions as an important route for bicycle traffic but also has limited motor vehicle traffic. The maximumspeed (for cars) is usually that of a residential road, e.g. 30 km/h. Cyclestreets look like normal roads in width, but the surface may be similar to that of cycleways. If a way can only be used by bicycles (and mopeds) it should be tagged with highway=cycleway. --Cjw 21:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


DE:Bicycle road

I think this should not be included in highway=*, but rather get an own key bicycle_road=yes like the motorroad=yes.--Skyper 23:43, 5 August 2010 (BST)

What is the advantage of this over the cycleway=cyclestreet mentioned above? --Cartinus 01:21, 6 August 2010 (BST)
There would be a collision between cycleway=cyclestreet and cycleway=opposite like here and cycleway=opposite is very often in use (more than 10.000x around the world)
For statistics from 1-2 weeks old tag list:
73x cycleway=cyclestreet
31x cyclestreet=yes
4x cycleroad=yes
In Osmarender styles I just expanded the existing rendering of highway=cycleroad (including two versions for with or without motor_vehicle=yes) to bicycle_road|cycleroad|cyclestreet=yes
--Mueck 16:25, 6 August 2010 (BST)
The bad idea is cycleway=opposite* which should better be tagged as oneway:bicycle=no or bicycle:forward/backward=yes.
While cycleway=(cycle)street seems to be a good idea, because it does not interfere with cycleway=track and cycleway=lane.
And if you want to keep cycleway=opposite* you could use cycleway=opposite_cyclestreet (Not advised by me).
I have never seen a cyclestreet with oneway=yes!
--phobie m d 16:15, 24 June 2011 (BST)