Talk:Tag:bicycle=optional sidepath

Why not just use standard cycleway=separate (cycleway:left=separate / cycleway:right=separate / cycleway:both=separate variants ) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This tags don't distinguish between compulsory and none compulsory cycleways. For compulsory cycleways bicycle=use_sidepath is used, for none compulsory cycleways bicycle=optional_sidepath is the analog tag. --Schienennagelhammerträger (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

If bicycle=use_sidepath is on main way then it indicates compulsory cycleway. If it is not there then cycleway is not compulsory. use_sidepath value is (a) access value (b) enough to distinguish between compulsory and noncompulsory ones. "optional_sidepath" is not an access value and should not be used as an access value. It should be a separate tag if it is really needed Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

"If it is not there then cycleway is not compulsory" No. Absence of a tag is NOT the opposite of the presence of a tag. A lot of compulsory cycleways still miss use_sidepath

"optional_sidepath" is an access value, it expresses a free and equivalent choice between carriageway and cycleway in contrast to no (carriageway forbidden by sign/law), use_sidepath (forbidden, instead of cargo bikes, turning left directly, snow, cars, holes ... on cycleways), yes (no other way as choice), designated (cycle road).

cycleway=separate indicates a mapping style, not accesses of the carriageway --Schienennagelhammerträger (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

""optional_sidepath" is an access value" - it is not, as optional sidepath does not influence legality of cycling on carriageway. What next, bicycle=optional_sidepath_with_low_quality_surface? bicycle=yes_but_has_many_potholes? Access values should stay being used for access, rather than cramming all data there. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't exaggerate. For surface and smoothness tags are existing. For free choices not, your tagging is for both, compulsory and non compulsory cycleways, ao it doesn't work ... --Schienennagelhammerträger (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

We do NOT have tagging for "cycleway next to road has poor surface" and we should not have Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Now you are sidetracking from the sidepath ...

We HAVE tags for poor features of ways, they are put at THIS poor way, we don't need to reinvent this wheel ...

your cycleway=separate still indicates only the mapping style of using separate ways instead of one way with h=* + cycleway:*=*

distinguishing absolutely certain between compulsory and none compulsory cycleways without optional_sidepath WAS an open question for separate mapping (for none separate it still is *) )

cycleways are always designated for bicyclists, they (and footways with "bicycle=yes") are also always allowed for bicycles, so bicycle=use_sidepath is correctly used for the carriageway-way, not for the sidepath

Having all this informations, if you find a cycleway with e.g. smoothness=horrible, you can decide to use the carriageway, if it has optional_sidepath or to search a track through fields an forests, if it has use_sidepath.

Without optional_sidepath, you can not be sure, if you are allowed to use the carriageway. use_sidepath at carriageway may be forgotten or not true, because the cycleway ist none compulsory

You may tag the carriageway with the default bicylce=yes, together with cycleway=separate this may indicate, that the cycleway is none compulsory, but b=yes sounds not right, because it is default, you should not tag defaults, and it's only the half of truth, because ist not clearly indicates the free choice of carriagway or cycleway (and others)

*) to fill this last gap, I searched here for a word to tag features only for the carriageway without sidepaths. The discussion was sidetracking to surfaces, so I wait for further steps, but it seems, that there is no alternative to carriageway:*. Using carriageway:bicycle=no/use_sidepath/optional_sidepath/... will fill the gap for mapping without separate ways. I would prefer b=u/o instead if c:b=u/o, because it's simpler, but b=use_sidepath is not allowed, because it was said, this may confuse routers?

--Schienennagelhammerträger (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I just saw, that in Talk:Tag:cycleway=separate in 2021 you marked the discussion as resolved, where also the sentence ...

It does not make any statement about whether that separately mapped cycle path is compulsory or not.

... is included in discussion. That is exactly, what I said. c=sep. may be skipped, if b=use_... is used (because there are more cases of optional paths, c=sep. may be still useful while using b=optional_...). But you can't reverse it: No c=sep. = b=use_..., with c=sep. b=optional_... ist not a certain mapping. C=sep. indicates mapping style, b=..._sidepath access of carriageway --Schienennagelhammerträger (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I also fail to see how bicycle=optional_sidepath is an access-tag. If I just wanted to clarify that the separately mapped cycleway is non-compulsory, I can just say bicycle=yes on the road. Both means the same: you can ride on the road with your bike. Why overcomplicate it? The only use case would be for non-separately mapped cycleways, but even for these, we currently don't have a means to tag them as compulsory. bicycle=compulsory would make far more sense for cycleways not mapped separately, but that's a different story. --Nadjita (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)