User:MasiMaster/testpage

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


{{Languages|Bicycle_use_sideway}} {{Proposal_Page |name=bicycle=use_sideway |user=PeeWee32 |key=bicycle |value=use_sideway |type=Highways with a [[OSM tags for routing/Access-Restrictions#Germany|classification that allows cycling generally]] '''without''' "bicycle forbidden sign" and '''with''' a parallel compulsory cycleway. Countries that have compulsory cycleways. |definition=This is a highway (i.e. tertiary) with a [[OSM tags for routing/Access-Restrictions#Germany|classification that allows cycling generally]] '''without''' "bicycle forbidden sign" and '''with''' a parallel compulsory cycleway. |appearance= |status=Draft |draftStartDate=2014-01-30 |rfcStartDate= |voteStartDate= |voteEndDate= }}

Some words about the last proposal (bicycle=use_cycleway)

We saw, that the definition of the last proposal (bicycle=use_cycleway) was not clear enough and left some room for different interpretation. We forgot to express that basically this tag is an "access" issue. We also forgot to express why and in which cases it can improve routing.

Reasons for opposing

There were quite a few reasons voters opposed. Here's a list of what we think were the main reasons why the old proposal was opposed:

  1. Some believed it will not improve routing.
  2. There is no need for a new tag because routers should know that cycling is not allowed based on the fact that there is a compulsory cycleway that is parallel. If we make a new tag it is "tagging for the router".
  3. bicycle=no is in use should be applied here.
  4. there is no sign at the road: no sign->no tag
  5. no backward compatibility to the existing bicycle=no (in e.g. NL)


Our view on these 5 items are:

  1. It is an access tag, like many others. Even if you are convinced it will not improve routing it should not be opposed just because of this reason.
  2. Again, it is first of all an access tag.
  3. bicycle=no is not the right tag because it is not a "hard" no hence the absence of a "forbidden sign". This is something in between a YES and NO like "destination, limited, restricted".
  4. In some countries (like NL) the parallel cycleway is legally considdered to be part of the main road. In that sence the sign Compulsory cycleway says something about both the cycleway and the main road.
  5. As far as we know there is only a backwards compatibility issue in NL. Except for NL the roads we are discussing do not have a bicycle=* tag yet so we see no issue here. To keep backward compatibility in NL, we can agree not to retag (no->the new tag) for some months/a year. It makes sense to add a temporary taging in NL like bicycle:no=use_sideway, which can be automatically transformed to the proposed tag after the interim time. If the voting is accepted, we can inform the router-engineers about the new tag, so they have time to implement it to their software. There has already been a demand for this kind of tagging by a router (BRouter).

What key/value should we use?

In the discussion on the old proposal some suggestions were made for the key & value (tag):

  1. bicycle=use_cycleway (= old proposal)
  2. bicycle=use_sideway or bicycle=use_sidepath (it could also be used for foot=*) (= new proposal)
  3. bicycle=no combined with a new key/value like bicycle:no=use_cycleway or bicycle:restriction=use_cycleway or bicycle:use_cycleway=yes
  4. bicycle=restricted + bicycle:restricted=use_cycleway
  5. bicycle=restricted

The old proposal was very much focussed on bicycles but the discussion made us realise that a more general access value should be used that could apply to other means of transportation like moped, foot, mofa or other type of ways. Also the value (use_cycleway) was much focused on bicycles. We've changed that to "use_sideway" in order to make it more general for e.g. keys like foot=*, mofa=*,moped=* which also expresses the access implication.

What have we learned from the discussion about last proposal?

  1. We'll emphasize on the Access part of the proposal.
  2. Although the new proposal will use the bicycle=use_sideway as an example to make things clear it is in fact not a proposal for just the bicycle=* KEY. It can be used for other means of transportation if applicable.
  3. The VALUE will also be more general (use_sideway)
  4. We've added examples of how it could improve routing and rendering.

The new proposal is just for the VALUE

The old proposal was for the combination of an existing KEY and a new VALUE: "bicycle=use_cycleway". The discussion learned that te problem is more general then just for bicycles. That is the reason the new proposal is just for a new VALUE (use_sideway). In the rest of this proposal we will use the bicycle key just to keep away from a too abstract discussion so keep in mind that it is just the VALUE that is new.

The main reason for this new tag

This is a proposal for a new access tag. It is a tag to mark that it is normally not allowed to use the road on a bicycle. Instead use the compulsory cycleway (or maybe footway).

What is the new proposal (use_sideway)

In this wiki we use the "bicycle" KEY in order to make examples more concrete. Please bear in mind that the proposed value (use_sideway) can be applied to e.g. foot, moped etc. as well. Also see the list of land-based means of transportation.

This tag bicycle=use_sideway applies only to roads with a classification that allows cycling generally. When this road has a parallel compulsory cycleway (e.g. Zeichen 240 - Gemeinsamer Fuß- und Radweg, StVO 1992.svg or Zeichen 241-30.svg (DE) or Nederlands verkeersbord G12a.svg or 100px-Nederlands verkeersbord G11 svg.png) (NL) this tag can be applied. But only when this road does NOT have a traffic sign saying it is explicitly forbidden to ride a bicycle (e.g. Nederlands verkeersbord C14.svg or Nederlands verkeersbord C9.svg ). In that case use the "bicycle=no". Legal and access implications may and will vary from country to country. The implications of these traffic signs on many specials vehicles and situations varies so much that it would need a lot of new tags to express this in OSM. There is no need to do this if the legal situation is clear. With a new country specific access scheme (=concept) on compulsory cycleways and their parallel roads it should give routers and renderers enough information for any type of vehicle/situation.

Rationale

Tagging Access

This tag will add access information to the OSM database. The absence of any "bicycle= " tag may give the impression that cycling is always allowed which is not the case when there is a parallel compulsary cycleway.

Routing

This tag will improve bicycle routing. A router can now decide to propose a route that does not use these type of roads. Because of the absence of a "bicycle=" tag routers propose routes that are illegal to take. Here are some examples. Both routes go from east to west (or right to left). The router was asked to take the SHORTEST possible route and seems to have done a good job. Unfortunately it took a route over a road where cycling was not allowed because of the compulsory cycleway.

Example1 (cycleways are red or red/blue)

Use cycleway routing1.jpg

Example2 (cycleways are red or red/blue
Use cycleway routing2.jpg

Also see this example where the router takes the shortest route and has no way of knowing it should not take these roads (because there is no bicycle access tagged).
Example3 (cycleways are blue dotted, the route is blue)
Graphhopper.jpg

See the discussion page of the first proposal for more details about routing.

Rendering

A renderer can decide to render these kind of roads differently. A map can be made showing roads on which you are (not) supposed to ride with an ordinary (or exceptional) bicycle. The OSM based Openfietsmap for Garmin GPS devices uses the "bicycle=no" tag to add dashes to these of roads. This way a cyclist can see on his GPS device if he is allowed to ride on this road.

Use cycleway bicycle no.jpg

Something similar can be done with the bicycle=use_sideway tag.

In Bremen (DE) some roads already have the bicycle=use_cycleway tag. This makes it possible to make a map showing bicycle=no, bicycle=use_sideway (new proposal) and bicycle=use_cycleway (old proposal).

Distinguish between roads that are "forbidden" for cyclists

Here are 2 examples of types of roads on which you are not supposed to ride your bicycle.

Type1: This is a road with a bicycle forbidden sign like Nederlands verkeersbord C14.svg

Type2: This is a road with a classification that allows cycling on but because it has a parallel compulsory cycleway (like 100px-Nederlands verkeersbord G11 svg.png in NL and DE) it is not allowed to ride your (ordinary) bicycle.

Legal authorities have made a difference between this 2 types. Why? In some countries the difference has implications on special vehicles. For example in NL a three wheel bicycle/tricycle with certain measurements is allowed to ride on the type2 road but not on type 1. In Germany there is also a legal (and access) difference between these roads.(read links) In Austria training with a race-bike is allowed on the road. (These Exceptions could be handled by the Country specific access table) In order to allow routing and rendering for different vehicles/purposes we have to distinguish between the 2 types. The question is, how?

How to distinguish between the types?

There are roughly 2 ways to distinguish.

Option A: Tag type1 with a bicycle=no AND tag type2 with a new tag such as the proposed bicycle=use_sideway

Option B: Tag type1 AND type2 with a bicycle=no AND additionally tag Type2 with "my special vehicle=yes" in which "my special vehicle" could be every description of vehicle that is allowed to ride on type2 roads.

Option B means that we are tagging legal matters in OSM and not what we see in reality. Option B means that every time the law changes but traffic signs do not we have to change tagging. Option B also means a growth in the number of tags which does not help to keep things simple and keep overview. Option A does not have these disadvantages.

One could argue that option A (bicycle=use_sideway) is also a legal thing but if we just agree upon the meaning of this tag it is not. bicycle=use_sideway means: This is a road with a classification that allows cycling without a "bicycle forbidden sign" with a parallel compulsory cycleway on which you are supposed to ride your ordinary bicycle. This can be objectively seen in reality.

Universal way of tagging

In NL the type 2 roads are forbidden for ordinary bicycles (a "hard NO"). For this reason they are tagged with a "bicycle=no" The Type 1 is also tagged this way which currently makes it impossible to distinguish between the 2 types. We have to distinguish in order to allow routers/renderers for special vehicles.

Instead of this bicycle=use_sideway we could use bicycle=no an additionally a “my special vehicle/situation=yes”. There are a few reasons why we do not think this is a good idea.

1 Mappers are no legal experts

In OSM we rely on mappers and not legal experts. An ordinary mapper does not know what the legal status is of many extraordinary vehicles and there are many. In NL 3 wheel velomobile with such measurements is allowed to ride these type 2 roads (but not the typ1). Hardly anyone knows this. We're also sure that most mappers don't know the legal status of horse carriages, skateboards, sedgeways, 45km/h pedelec etc. The problem is that there are no traffic signs with pictograms for all these exceptional vehicles so how should a mapper know?

2 Too many tags

Imagine that all special vehicles and situations would be tagged. How would we see all these tags in the editor. We're afraid it would be a complete mess in OSM. Simply too many tags so we loose overview. We are facing enough challenges with the current list of land-based means of transportation.

3 Changing law needs changing tags

Imagine that in NL law would change in such a way that groups of race-cyclist of more then 10 are allowed to use the type2 way. Or maybe the newly introduced fast electric bicycles that do 45km/h are allowed to use the type2 way. Then this would have to be mapped. Who is going to do this? If we would have the bicycle=use_sideway nothing had to be changed. We think we have to be careful with mapping legal access in OSM unless the traffic signs are obvious. In fact we think that if we map in such a way that we (and routers/renderers) know what traffic signs apply to roads, routing for any vehicle should be fairly easy.

4 Country specific

All the exceptional vehicles and situations vary from country to country. Imagine tags like “three wheel bicycle wider then .75m=yes” in NL and “three wheel bicycle with combustion engine > 250Watt=yes” in an other country. This is just going to be too much for most mappers. I would not start mapping these exceptions abroad because I just don't know all legal aspects. Instead a country specific scheme can be made to express access rules of various odd vehicles on compulsary cycleways and their parallel roads.

5 In short

Mapping this way will never happen in such an extend that it will improve routing for bicycles (both ordinary and exceptional ones) .

So all this made us feel it was an illusion to improve bicycle routing by adding different tags for all these exceptional vehicles/situations. This could work in theory but it simply will never work in practice

So, it had to be as simple a possible. Something any mapper could see in reality based on traffic signs and roads and cycleways. That's the reason why we have added a definition of the tag.


Bicycle=use_sideway means:

This is a road with a classification that allows cycling without a "bicycle forbidden sign" with a parallel compulsory cycleway on which you are supposed to ride your ordinary bicycle.

Examples

Picture Tags
FietspadG11.jpg
Cycleway: cycling is compulsory.
Cycleway:
highway=cycleway
(implicit:bicycle=designated)

Main road:
bicycle=use_sideway
Nederlands verkeersbord G13.svg(NL)
or
France road sign C113.svg(FR)
or
Zusatzzeichen 1022-10.svg(DE)
Cycleway: cycling is NOT compulsory.
Cycleway:
highway=cycleway
Possible additional tags, i.e. tags that show that the cycleway is not compulsory or mofa=* tags

Main road:
no explicit bicycle=* tags
Wilhelminenstraße (Darmstadt).jpg
Cycling is explicit not allowed
highway=*
bicycle=no (explicit bicycle ban)

Some more examples in which all cycleways are compulsory cycleways.

Picture Remarks
Use sideway1.jpg NL, DE, PL: Common situation in urban and rural areas. Alternatively there could be 2 oneway cycleways. One on each side of the road.
Use sideway2.jpg NL: Common situation in non-urban areas.

DE, PL: Situation at some bypass- or trunk-roads.
Use sideway3.jpg In this situation cycling one way you should use the cycleway. Cycling the other way you should use the main road. There are no one-way signs present on the main road so a oneway tag is not applicable.
Use sideway4.jpg In this situation cycling one way you should use the cycleway. Cycling the other way you should use the main road. There are no one-way signs present on the main road so a oneway tag is not applicable.
Use sideway5.jpg In this situation cycling one way you should use the cycleway. Cycling the other way you should use the main road. There are no one-way signs present on the main road so a oneway tag is not applicable.
Use sideway6.jpg In this situation cycling one way you should use the cycleway. Cycling the other way you should use the main road. There are no one-way signs present on the main road so a oneway tag is not applicable.

Links

On both the German forum (in English) and Dutch forum there have been discussions on how to tag these highways. To support this tag a interactive map is made to highlight these (and other) roads.

bicycle=use_sideway
bicycle:forward=use_sideway    bicycle:backward=use_sideway

OLD PROPOSAL

bicycle=use_cycleway
bicycle:forward=use_cycleway    bicycle:backward=use_cycleway

Voting

Please use {{vote|yes}} or {{vote|no}} and give your reasons to oppose. Use --~~~~ to sign your user name & date: