The tagging of paths and cycle tracks on the map seems to be very inconsistent, with some paths that have a white line and pictures of bikes being marked as footways, but others that don't have any bike signposts being marked as cycletracks.
I've added a description of how I would tag them, based on how they are tagged in the UK.
I will add some photos so that we have concrete examples.
I welcome discussion of how to tag these, particularly as I have no idea of the legal status of these paths and just follow the local custom of riding my bike where I please (as long as I don't run people over).
Bruce mcadam 21:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is mostly my doing and the strategy I've been using is to completely ignore whether the way is actually marked as a designated cycleway with a white line designating 1/3 of it as a dedicated cycleway or not and instead mark it either as Tag:highway=footway or Tag:highway=cycleway depending on a subjective evaluation of its fitness for cycling, why?
- To please the renderer
- Conceptually this is a big no-no but practically I'd like to be able to look at the map and be able to quickly tell which of the ways on it are paved, wide and suitable for bicycle traffic. An example of this is Miklatún where I've tagged the wide paved way going through it as a cycleway even though nothing marks it as such. But it's immediately visually distinct from the other paved/unpaved ways on whether they have Tag:bicycle=yes or not. This is the case with all renderings of the map (Mapnik/Osmarenderer/mkgmap/opencyclemap).
- The city of Reykjavík and its satellites don't care about these marking so why should we?
- Nobody in the capital area is in the business of maintaining the markings for the advertised cycle network, if you want to know what the official cycleways in the capital area are look no further than on the official map. It should be obvious to anyone who's been on the marked cycleways that this map is a pure work of fantasy that in no way at all reflects the state of the real cycle network (in some cases you have to cycle down steps to navigate it). Some subsets of cycleways on this maps have been marked as such on the ground but some of them haven't. And there's no correlation at all between ways that are actually fit for cycling and those that are officially marked as such. Some of the best cycleways in the capital area are completely unmarked.
- The official cycleways should be marked though
- That's not to say that the official (line 1/3 down the middle & accompanying sign) cycleways shouldn't be marked on the map. If nothing more knowing where they are is a curious bit of administrative trivia. But I for one won't put my primary focus on marking things according to a system that really has no basis in reality.
- So what do I suggest?
- Well not much really other than the points above which I think should be considered in any tagging system, particularly the one about pleasing the renderer. But I also think marking ways with Key:tracktype is something that would be very useful, much more so than aping any official tagging system. I've been marking ways with this already but roughly standardardizing it (with accompanying pictures of examples) would be very useful indeed for both footways and cycleways and other types of highways.
- --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I take it it's the cycle heads that are on a mission tagging footpaths and driveways beside regular roads? Is this really necessary? Running a footpath line beside a street and marking zebra crossings on every driveway? If you're going to do that, could we at least get rid of all the extra points? raw waypoint data is all over the map now. For garbage bins, could we please just use a point? There's lots of overlapping cruft in some of these areas. (Don't use josm, it's the work of the devil and you can't see those things) Kpalsson 15:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Most of this reply is inherently accurate since I have no idea what most of the issues you mention mean exactly, the following are answers based on my guesswork of what I think you mean
- The recent developments you describe have mostly been my doing. I've been marking footways including those accompanying roads (sidewalks, gangstéttir) but mostly features of direct interest to cyclists. And yes, they are necessary, as long as there's a feature on the ground (road, footway, cycleway) that isn't on the map the map is incomplete and that needs to be fixed, I've also been marking crossing (including zebra crossings) where they break up footways and cycleways and I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that, they're features on the ground and should be on the map.
- What are these extra points you're referring to? I probably have a more accurate GPS than most of you and depending on what I think is required at any given time I draw more accurate ways than most (if I trust the accuracy of the data). This is particularly needed for footways and cycleways which often take numerous small turns and bends as they move across the landscape and thus need more points to accurately describe them. Are ways with lots of point a problem in some way?
- What's the raw waypoint data you're referring to? I can only guess that you're talking about the following: When I've imported GPX traces into Potlatch it auto-creates points indicating the waypoints in the GPX files with default key-value pairs that aren't required for the map, if you then use those points during editing to form a way the key-value pairs get left behind as part of the data unless you remember to delete them. Most of the times when I've used Potlatch I've remembered to deleted those but maybe I forgot a few lying around. Is this what you're talking about? In any case I now use JOSM which doesn't suffer from this problem since its waypoint system is different.
- I've been marking garbage bins using amenity=waste disposal // waste=trash. All of these are points as you suggest. I don't think this is a particularly useful thing at the moment since it doesn't show up on the map (unlike recycling stations).
- I also use JOSM as my primary editor, are there any particular problems with it you'd like to share with us? It works quite fine for me and thousands of other users.
- --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:26, 30 August 2008 (UpTC)
I was recently in your amazing country, and I looked at Reykjavik as an OSMer, and the footway/cycleway thing was one the question that came to my mind... I first saw your 'segregated' cycleways as footways because pedestrians seems to have the largest part of the way for them. But on a second tought, it seems that Icelanders does not walk a lot, some runs, some cycle, but I did not cross a lot of walkers.
For the cycle/footways going along some roads(mostly primaries), I think they should be mapped because even if they follow the adjacent road, they are clearly not part of this road.
That is (just) an outside point of view.--PhilippeP 07:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Here are some photographed cycle tracks with suggested tags. Comments on these suggestions are welcome. If nobody responds then I will put these suggestions on the WikiProject_Iceland/Cycleways and I will make changes to the map to fit them.
Segregated Cycle Track
A segregated cycle track has a white line separating cyclists and pedestrians. Signposts show a white line dividing the space.
- I suggest:
- As for Tag:segregated=yes that doesn't seem to have widespread (actually almost no) usage. Perhaps there's a more common tag to indicate this?
- Actually it doesn't matter how common this is, we can always change it later if we need to. I've already begun tagging segregated foot/cycleways with this schema (see upper Elliðárdalur for an example) --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Non-Segregated Cycle Track
This example has a sign explicitly permitting cycling, but no white line. The space is shared by pedestrians and cyclists.
- I suggest:
- --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Some paths have no cycle signs but are used by pedestrians and cyclists.
- I have reservations about converting unmarked cycleways to Tag:highway=path (see my first comment at the top of the page) but if this is to be done at all these also need Tag:motorcar=no Tag:motorcycle=no to indicate that they're unsuitable for motorized vehicles, see Tag:highway=path/Examples. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
just wanted to add something to the discussion: I was looking around the map and there are a lot of ways that are in my opinion unneccessary. T.d. in my opinion the ways besides Háaleitisbraut starting from Hvassaleiti are just normal sideways and not separated cycleways and they are not cycleways at all. There are lot of ways just ending nowhere especially around the bigger crossings or Bústaðavegur or Grensás/Mikla. If we start to edit these ways we should finish them and connect them correctly. And I don't think we need always ways besides roads.
- I agree on Miklabraut where is a big distance between road and path - but question: Is it a designated cycleway? I did not see a sign and if there is no sign we should use path with bicycle and pedestrian allowed. I think we should stick more to the examples and guidelines from highway:path. They are very clearly and good. I think the law in Iceland says that you are allowed to drive on footways with the bicycle except designated footways.
- I think we maybe should discuss what is a sideway and what is an separated path. A good example may be Háaleitisbraut between Mikla and Bústaða. What is it? Separated path or sideway?
- Just some thoughts about the mapping and I want to know what you think about it.
Making use of the Reykjavík 2011 bike map
I was just wondering if we should not make use of the 2011 bike map given out by the city Reykjavík bike map?
Basically one could use the of the cycle routes tags and Bike_routes and mark all paths as cycle routes. They even have numbers, so we could make use of the Key:ncn_ref, Key:rcn_ref, and Key:lcn_ref tags. Here is what I would suggest.
Tag the secondary paths in the map with Key:lcn=yes and add no number.
Use the Key:surface to indicate if it is paved or not.
This would allow for quite some better bike routing in the city if we all make sure the actual bike routes connect and keep connected. And as always, it is better to use relations to taged cycle routes which exist, especially if you extend an existing one.
Just my thoughts to all of that. I have been editing some paths like that in the Hringbraut area. Anybody any suggestions?