Re: [Tagging] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags
sent from a phone > On 30 Apr 2024, at 08:51, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > >> In fact, some bicycle trails are signed where >> cycling is illegal > > So does that then make it legal? no, in Germany it also happens from time to time that we discover signposted bicycle routes where cycling is legally forbidden, often presumably because the signs are not “correct” (not what is intended), and the legal conclusion from such a situation is you have to push the bike on such sections. Route markers do not change legal accessibility as defined by traffic signs.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags
There was a similar conversation in the Hungarian community as well. I would like to ask what you think about such (and similar) official bicycle route signs: https://www.google.hu/maps/@47.4675022,18.8055463,3a,35.3y,85.25h,81.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_4lLYsjnTzP_R_swduneHg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu https://www.google.hu/maps/@47.4653939,18.8056303,3a,16.7y,337.24h,87.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5KRYaFzRIWPFrMwQBrYf9g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu do they imply a bicycle=designated value for the road if it is not a cycleway (because it is unnecessary for that), or is it enough to just put the lcn/rcn etc. value on the road. Thanks, Szem 2024.04.30. 09:09 keltezéssel, Martin Koppenhoefer írta: sent from a phone On 30 Apr 2024, at 08:51, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: In fact, some bicycle trails are signed where cycling is illegal So does that then make it legal? no, in Germany it also happens from time to time that we discover signposted bicycle routes where cycling is legally forbidden, often presumably because the signs are not “correct” (not what is intended), and the legal conclusion from such a situation is you have to push the bike on such sections. Route markers do not change legal accessibility as defined by traffic signs. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags
Am Di., 30. Apr. 2024 um 10:54 Uhr schrieb Szem : > There was a similar conversation in the Hungarian community as well. I > would like to ask what you think about such (and similar) official bicycle > route signs: > > https://www.google.hu/maps/@47.4675022,18.8055463,3a,35.3y,85.25h,81.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_4lLYsjnTzP_R_swduneHg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu > > https://www.google.hu/maps/@47.4653939,18.8056303,3a,16.7y,337.24h,87.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5KRYaFzRIWPFrMwQBrYf9g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu > do they imply a bicycle=designated value for the road if it is not a > cycleway (because it is unnecessary for that), or is it enough to just put > the lcn/rcn etc. value on the road. > IMHO, these markers have no legal meaning for accessibility (e.g. in Germany and Italy), but I am not familiar with Hungarian law. Generally, a route is mapped as a route (relation and/or lcn/rcn/ncn tags), while access (bicycle=designated) is mapped according to traffic signs (these route markers in jurisdictions I am aware of, are not "traffic signs" in this sense). Legally, there is nothing wrong with a bicycle route where cycling is not allowed (e.g. on short stretches), it just means you have to push. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags
I would re-iterate Martin's assertion. In Norway, we tag bicycle=designated/foot=designated when there is a traffic sign for cycleway/footway/combined. Implicit in this logic is that the consequence of the traffic sign is a different legal status compared to an unsigned road. A route sign is not a traffic sign and causes no change in legal status. We would not use =designated nor =yes merely because of a route sign. The route sign tells us to add a route relation to the way. Jens On 30/04/2024 10:49, Szem wrote: There was a similar conversation in the Hungarian community as well. I would like to ask what you think about such (and similar) official bicycle route signs: https://www.google.hu/maps/@47.4675022,18.8055463,3a,35.3y,85.25h,81.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_4lLYsjnTzP_R_swduneHg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu https://www.google.hu/maps/@47.4653939,18.8056303,3a,16.7y,337.24h,87.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5KRYaFzRIWPFrMwQBrYf9g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu do they imply a bicycle=designated value for the road if it is not a cycleway (because it is unnecessary for that), or is it enough to just put the lcn/rcn etc. value on the road. Thanks, Szem 2024.04.30. 09:09 keltezéssel, Martin Koppenhoefer írta: sent from a phone On 30 Apr 2024, at 08:51, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: In fact, some bicycle trails are signed where cycling is illegal So does that then make it legal? no, in Germany it also happens from time to time that we discover signposted bicycle routes where cycling is legally forbidden, often presumably because the signs are not “correct” (not what is intended), and the legal conclusion from such a situation is you have to push the bike on such sections. Route markers do not change legal accessibility as defined by traffic signs. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags
Martin Koppenhoefer: IMHO, these markers have no legal meaning for accessibility (e.g. in Germany and Italy), but I am not familiar with Hungarian law. Generally, a route is mapped as a route (relation and/or lcn/rcn/ncn tags), while access (bicycle=designated) is mapped according to traffic signs (these route markers in jurisdictions I am aware of, are not "traffic signs" in this sense). Legally, there is nothing wrong with a bicycle route where cycling is not allowed (e.g. on short stretches), it just means you have to push. I agree. We had the discussion in Denmark, where some bicycle routes includes steps, typically on short stretches leading to tunnels or bridges crossing railway tracks. They are then tagged as highway=steps,bicycle=dismount. The flat part is tagged with e.g., bicycle=dismount,highway=path Some have a footpath sign, but even for those that do not, it is obvious that even if you have a mountain-bike that could go over the steps, you really should not drive down steps where you could meet a trainload of passengers. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags (was: Re: How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway)
On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 23:57, Andy Townsend wrote: > In terms of access rights*, I've always thought that (in England and > Wales**) "yes" and "designated" mean both "a legal right to access", as > opposed to "permissive" that means "you can go there, but that right can be > removed by the landowner whenever they wish". What would you say the > difference between "yes" and "designated" are? > > Best Regards, > > Andy > Need to point out for others reading this than I am in England, and influenced by what I believe was likely the original intent of these tags, that is mapping of the "English/Welsh, rights of way" I've always treated " foot|bicycle|horse=yes, as a means of showing I confidently believe with evidence available that access is allowed. Done with regard to the defaults for tag (eg don't add when highway=footway) Designated & Permissive allow me to tag in more detail if evidence is available to support tags I use ''designated" for where there is a demonstrable "right of access" eg Specific recognisable signage, online usable data, etc, which demonstrates a legislative or contractual, rights of way. I use "permissive" for the common British situation of ways being provided on private land, and where the owner has displayed signage to inform the public that the way is "Permissive" and not an English/Welsh "Public Right of Way". (This should block the private way becoming a "right of way" through continuous use.) Issues I have are separating "legal right of access" and the ability to actually use the way. A common problem with British/Welsh rights of way which do not have to be managed to to allow all foot users Jass ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica
Am Di., 30. Apr. 2024 um 01:47 Uhr schrieb Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana < jptolosanz...@outlook.cl>: > It has no sense to inflating classifications of every island in the word > for being the most important road in respective island. > > If a neighbor garage is more quieter than the mine is not a justification > to elevate road classification of one of them to compensate this difference. > > The highway=* tag is no made to use all classifications in a region > delimited by you. > > yes, agree to all of this, this is why I mentioned the length. A continent is also not a region arbitrarily delimited by someone, especially if it is completely surrounded by water, like antarctica. > You need take account the function supplied by the road, the differences > in the highway value are related to the function of the road. > The main criterion that we decided was "relative importance in the road network". Function somehow has to do with it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
