From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

highway=cycleway + cycleway=?

I don't come up with a reason to use cycleway= with highway=cycleway. A way tagged as highway=cycleway already means that it is separate from any road so tagging cycleway=track is redundant. Also the other values for cycleway= are needed only when a way is tagged as highway=primary/secondary/(or other highway mainly for cars). The only use I came up with is a very rare case of highway=cycleway + motorcar=(yes/permissive/...) and bicycles have a separate lane (cycleway=lane) or the way is a one way street for cars (cycleway=opposite + oneway=yes). In what other situations does cycleway= with highway=cycleway give extra information? --PetskuH 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

maximum speed

Although for most drivers not attainable, some might be able to cycle fast enough to go faster than the possible speed limit applicable to bicycles. Some countries limit speeds for all vehicles, bicycles included, and apparently in some countries speed limits don't apply to cyclists. Also, in some countries a speed limit posted on the road right next to a cycleway applies to the cycleway also.

Country General speed limit for bicycles specifically National limit applies Speed limit applies when cycling on the road Speed limit of the road applies when cycling on a cycleway next to a road National limit for cycling on ways shared with pedestrians
Finland No Yes, 50/80 km/h Yes Yes No
Germany No No No No Yes

"Mainly or exclusively"

I can see from the history of the page that the wording was fought over last summer. But the end result is not correct (and indeed contradicts itself).

I'd have said it was more accurate to say that cycleways indicate corridors that are mainly or exclusively for cyclists and pedestrians.

Where they are used for ways that are mainly or exclusively for cyclists only, this should either be the norm for that country (as set out in access-restrictions), or be indicated by the addition of a tag foot=no. In either situation, an alternative way for pedestrians should be shown if one exists (this may merely be the footway implied by an adjacent road).

--RichardMann 14:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to "segregated=yes"

see Talk:Sidewalks#Sidewalks in roads with cycleways--Ulamm (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find any discussion about using sidewalk=* on highway=cycleway/path. This is just an alternative to segregated=* therefor I oppose this and if there are no further reasons mentioned within the next 5 days, I will remove all the text mentioning this from this page. This is in context to the edits of user ulamm.--U715371 (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It is the better alternative: Two tags instead of four:
And with this half a number of tags, it provides more information. It notes the relative position of both ways (though that information is not yet rendered – alike most roadline tags on sidewalks as well as cycletracks.)
And why do you miss a discussion?
A discussion is necessary to create a new rule.
But the note that something is not forbidden is no new rule.
OSM works or ought to work like a free society, and one of the principles of free societies is, "anything is allowed which is not explicitely forbidden."
In spite of this principle, the combination "highway=path + sidewalk=right" would be a bad suggestion, if it would not work. But it works, it is understood by pedestrian routing.
And there was not "no" discussion. There was a discussion between me and user:RobJN that resulted in an agreement.--Ulamm (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

User:U715371's revert

I have tried to convert the German part of the Wiki from a labyrithical collection of divergent and partly ill-founded opinions into a systematical and well-founded introduction, nevertheless taking in account the main schemes.

  • Before somebody wants do delete some of the informations I have entered, he has to prove for any single that it is wrong.
  • Before somebody wants to change the tagging guidelines, the very most of all not invented by me, he has to prove the benefit of his alternative.--Ulamm (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

When should you map a separate way for a sidepath?

From a discussion on talk-de I noticed that there is no consensus about when to map a separate way for sidepaths. For some a kerb already gives reason for that - for others not. Some other reasonable barriers would be lowered kerbs, fences, retaining walls, road greening etc. Since this is not discussed sufficiently, I would like to add a warning to this page: "At the moment there is no consensus about when to map a sidepath as separate way".--U715371 (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

U715371 is very fond of roadway-tagging of cycletracks (see User:U715371/Erfassen von Fahrrad- und Fußweginfrastruktur in der Praxis#Wann sind Radwege als separater Weg erfassbar?), which was pushed not at least by HawkPat on 16:50, 8 July 2011‎, writing in DE:Tag:highway=cycleway, pleople shouldn't draw cycletracks as separate waylines if there is no distance of at least 5 metres from the carriageway.--Ulamm (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Lane tag for cycleway, footway and path?

There is no adequate way to describe where cycleway and footway are situated relative to each other since they are mapped on the same way using segregated=yes. Here are some suggestions or ideas made at the wiki and on the tagging list.

  • sidewalk=left/right.
  • bicycle:lanes:forward=designated|no

The first one is not in the sense of the common usage of sidewalk=* and very different from what is described at the Wiki at Sidewalks. The second one is good to describe more complex situations, too. It is the lanes scheme just on cycle-/footways and may fit better. In situations with two lanes for cyclists (one forward and another backward), it would give a more precise description. Since both tags are necessary it is not very short. What is your opinion about that?--U715371 (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

  • The first one is not in contradiction to the description of sidewalks, despite the writer of that article has believed, the tag sidewalk=* were not useful for car-free ways. Obviously he has not thought of separately drawn roadside cycletracks nor of the problem, the segregated=no tag also on non-roadside combinations of a cycletrack nad a footway does not describe the relative position.
    • In normal language, a roadside footway is a sidewalk, no matter if there is a cycletrack on the same side of the carriageway or not.
    • On car-free ways that are not part of a street or road, the term "sidewalk" is not used for the pedestrian section in normal language. There highway=cycleway + footway=left or footway=right might be better. But, whereas highway=cycleway + sidewalk=* is understood by pedestrian routers, highway=cycleway + footway=* may be not understood.
  • In the distinction of cycleway=lane vs. cycleway=track, "lane" stands for cycling facilities on the carriageway, "track" for cycling facilities beside the carriageway. Therefore, the usage of a "lane"-tag for cycling facilities beside the carriageway would cause chaos.--Ulamm (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I see no problems using sidewalk=* on cycleways as long as it is about real sidewalks separated from the cycleway by a kerb or similar (this is common in e.g. Denmark and Netherlands). I have tagged many cycleways that way. For segregated cycleways where the separation is just a painted line you could consider using some kind of lanes tagging, the sidewalk tag is less appropriate here. However, I find the lanes tagging scheme quite complex and a bit overkill for cycleways (lane tagging is more justified for cars as proper lane selection is important at complex junctions etc). Personally I am happy just using segregated=yes although it doesn't capture which sides are used for what. --opani (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

highway=cycleway + access=yes

I am seeing this on way 66313310 But wouldn't that mean that any vehicles are allowed to travel on this way? That is, I understand the 'access' key overrides any default that exists for cycleways.

This is no good valid tagging since it is so ambigous. Also cycleway=shared does not exist. Canada has no entry in the default values list, so the default is used which means for cycleway foot=no. Access=yes+motor_vehicle=no would allow foot but also carriages ;) --Jojo4u (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)