Proposal talk:Obligatory usage

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Expanding the proposal

I was thinking of expanding the proposal to other forms of transportation as well (access=obligatory), especially for pedestrians (foot=obligatory). This might be intressting because the use of sidewalks is a obligatory (in Germany). But this can also be derived from tags like footway=sidewalk, or similar. Also one would need to expand the bicycle=use_sidepath to a more general form of *=use_sidepath. Plus, drawing sidewalks as highway=footway + footway=sidewalk is disputed as far as I am informed. Any thoughts about that? --Hubert87 (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Different naming

I had bicycle=mandatory and bicycle=compulsory as alternitive names in mind. Should it be changed to one of thoose or is bicycle=obligatory OK? One thing I can think of that would be against bicycle=mandatory is that the UK have mandatory cycle lanes vs. advisory cycle lanes with mandatory meaning that motorists must obey them, cyclist can still choose to ride on the carrigeway. --Hubert87 (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Concerning mandatory, this is already used in the UK sense here and here. Compulsory is never used in the Wikipedia article while obligatory is used very often.--Jojo4u (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Where NOT to use

Discussion from the front page

No, no, no

Adding new value to a bicycle tag is a terrible idea. There is a widespread support for bicycle=designated and retagging cycleways to bicycle=obligatory would result in a breaking data.

Note also existence of bicycle=use_sidepath that is solving this problem without breaking data.

New key, something like bicycle:obligatory=yes would be acceptable.

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

+1 I do not see how this tag will improve anything, as a matter of fact, it becomes another way of tagging bicycle=use_sidepath or alternatively access=no + bicycle=yes Adding too many tags is just going to make confusion and result in useful tags being ignored by data consumers. --Skippern (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
+1 I agree. The cyclist ist free to use this specially designed way (bicycle=designated) as every other way. It's the nearby roadway which is restricted. I support bicycle:obligatory=yes (or whatever comes out of the "Different naming" section).--Jojo4u (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


I dislike the new tag for 2 reasons: First because it seems synonymous to actual usage (not the proposal) of bicycle=official, which is used on 8970 objects by now. Second because I think that both tags are fundamentally wrong. While cycleways are sometimes called obligatory in common language, they are not really obligatory. Nobody is obliged to use a certain cycleway. Such a cycleway is just an alternate route for a road where bicycles are banned. It's that ban we need to map. We can already choose from bicycle=no and bicycle=use_sidepath. That's fully sufficient in my eyes. There's no reason to dispute "whether that obligatory cycleway has to be mapped as a separate way". bicycle=use_sidepath works for separate ways as well as for cycleway=track. --Fkv (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I have also seen that bicycle=official has been used an stand alone cycleways with a blue traffic sign. But in general your stating an importent reason why I think we need a special value for that purpose. People started using values that were formaly intended for a different meanung to achieve the distinction between mandatory and optional cycleways. I only want to clear that up. After all the words "designated" and "official" have totally different meanings.
As for your second point. At least in Germany the rules for mandatory cycleways say one has to use that cycleway ("Der Radverkehr darf nicht die Fahrbahn, sondern muss den Radweg benutzen (Radwegbenutzungspflicht)."Zeichen 237).
As for use_sidepath -> Talk-Page --Hubert87 (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Some Numbers

Use of selected tags for Germany as of 16:00 on 2015-03-28

Qeurry for Count
["highway"="cycleway"]["bicycle"!~".*"] 76697
["highway"="cycleway"]["bicycle"="designated"] 22197
["highway"="cycleway"]["bicycle"="yes"] 8037
["highway"="cycleway"]["bicycle"="offical"] 1626
["highway"="path"]["bicycle"="designated"] 107081
["highway"="path"]["bicycle"="yes"] 78719
["highway"="path"]["bicycle"="offical"] 4049


I see some good opportunities for bicycle:obligatory=yes. Do you plan to change your proposal? --Jojo4u (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the late responce. I didn't get an email form the wikipage for your entry.
I'm thinking of abandoning this proposal. As for bicycle:obligatory=yes, I'm not convinced yet. I was thinking of using something like cycleway=adjacent/attendent/sidepath or similar in conjunction with traffic_sign=DE:237,DE:240,DE:241 to conclude an obligatory cycleway. The main reason for this is, that tagging of traffic_sign=DE:237,DE:240,DE:241 is already very useful, and a tag like cycleway=adjacent/attendent/sidepath is more general than bicycle:obligatory=yes and can be used for other purposes, like not rendering road ajacent sidepaths. --Hubert87 (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)