Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways
On Tuesday 14 October 2008, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > Tagging a road as something implies certain rules, surely, and only > > when those rules are different from the standard (for that country) > > should you need to say so. Same as the oneway=no discussion that > > went on previously. > > All those discussions about cycleways, motorway_link, maxspeed, > etc... seem to point at the same problem: on the one hand, the > authors should need to enter as little info as possible, and as close > to the "on the ground data" as possible, which means that it should > elide all the data that's available from context (local laws and > customs); and on the other hand, users of the data want it to be in a > much more regular form, without having to worry about the customs > used in any particular part of the world. > > So, I think we should split the data in the following way: > 1 - the user-written data, as close as possible to what's available > on the ground. > 2 - a bunch of "locales", defined by the land they cover (typically > countries, states, provinces, ...). > 3 - a set of rules that say how to interpret the raw data for > specific locales. > 4 - A library that takes the above 3 and generates a "clean" output, > indendent from any local laws and customs. I think I've been mentioning a thing like this for quite some time now. Things we need would be: * a set of "common tags" that could be used all over the world, but allow countries to discard/introduce some. This is mainly to not have different tags for the same thing in each country. This should be done for things like ** vehicle types ** special highway types (although I guess it's best to do that with a new highway_type tag for now) * a formally defined access structure, without any possible ambiguity. I tried starting this for quite some time now: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Access_restrictions with unambiguously defined rules to parse them. * a default set of rules that map "tags" to that structure, and additional sets for each country (or smaller region if necessary) that can override that default set of rules. ** By "tags" I mean anything from highway=cycleway to access=destination, or additional tags like highway_type=pedestrian_zone. I understand some don't like country specific rules, but I think this is much better than translating each and every traffic sign to the full list of access rules which will always introduce problems when a country changes some specific traffic rules for those signs. Just like you wouldn't tag the default maximum speed. Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways
In your letter dated Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:52:31 -0400 you wrote: >So, I think we should split the data in the following way: >1 - the user-written data, as close as possible to what's available on >the ground. >2 - a bunch of "locales", defined by the land they cover (typically >countries, states, provinces, ...). >3 - a set of rules that say how to interpret the raw data for >specific locales. >4 - A library that takes the above 3 and generates a "clean" output, >indendent from any local laws and customs. +1 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways
> Tagging a road as something implies certain rules, surely, and only when > those rules are different from the standard (for that country) should > you need to say so. Same as the oneway=no discussion that went on > previously. All those discussions about cycleways, motorway_link, maxspeed, etc... seem to point at the same problem: on the one hand, the authors should need to enter as little info as possible, and as close to the "on the ground data" as possible, which means that it should elide all the data that's available from context (local laws and customs); and on the other hand, users of the data want it to be in a much more regular form, without having to worry about the customs used in any particular part of the world. So, I think we should split the data in the following way: 1 - the user-written data, as close as possible to what's available on the ground. 2 - a bunch of "locales", defined by the land they cover (typically countries, states, provinces, ...). 3 - a set of rules that say how to interpret the raw data for specific locales. 4 - A library that takes the above 3 and generates a "clean" output, indendent from any local laws and customs. -- Stefan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Stanislav Brabec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Czech Republic: > There are very few dedicated cycleways. Most other cycleways are either > completely mixed with pedestrian ways (e. g. in Prague) or one half of > the way is pedestrian and the other is cycleway (e. g. Pardubice). > > Well, it's a question, whether such ways should be tagged as > highway=cycleway;foot=yes (as proposes wiki) 1/3 of all highway=cycleways have foot=yes in Sweden, I can't remember any cycleway that dissallowed foot access, I've never seen it. Besides if there were such a thing you would stil be able to use it on foot. -- /emj ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways
On 14/10/2008 13:43, spaetz wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:16:15PM +0200, sylvain letuffe wrote: >> I respect your points to defend cycleway, and to tag the "pedestrians >> allowed" >> by adding a foot=yes, but I'm quite sure the original problem in belgium was >> not quite a "pedestrian only" case. >> >> The fact is, that here in france (but I think this is the same case in >> belgium) we have those "so called" cycleway where are allowed : >> - bicycle >> - pedestrian >> - skate boards >> - roller blades >> - pedestrian with dogs >> - wheel chair >> - small plastic cars for children >> etc. >> >> Will anyone tag this : > >> highway=cycleway;foot=yes;skate=yes;roller=yes; ? In the UK, pedestrians can use all highways except where explicitly disallowed (e.g. motorways, and those where there is a Traffic Regulation Order). So if we do this ad absurdum highway=residential etc should be tagged foot=yes, bicycle=yes (and so on) as well. Tagging a road as something implies certain rules, surely, and only when those rules are different from the standard (for that country) should you need to say so. Same as the oneway=no discussion that went on previously. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:16:15PM +0200, sylvain letuffe wrote: > I respect your points to defend cycleway, and to tag the "pedestrians > allowed" > by adding a foot=yes, but I'm quite sure the original problem in belgium was > not quite a "pedestrian only" case. > > The fact is, that here in france (but I think this is the same case in > belgium) we have those "so called" cycleway where are allowed : > - bicycle > - pedestrian > - skate boards > - roller blades > - pedestrian with dogs > - wheel chair > - small plastic cars for children > etc. > > Will anyone tag this : > highway=cycleway;foot=yes;skate=yes;roller=yes; ? Yes, that is what I would expect if that is what is allowed. I don't see how this would be different from your proposal which would require: highway=path;bicycle=yes;foot=yes;skate=yes;roller > Well, I tag them highway=path, and that's not restricted, it correspond to > the > reallity : > "open to all non-motorized vehicles" And all highway=path will work with wheelchairs and skate boards? Phantastic, I look forward to seeing those skateboarders on the muddy paths I have seen already :-) spaetz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways
In your letter dated Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:16:15 +0200 you wrote: > >> highway=cycleway;foot=yes >> >> used to work very well before highway=path has been introduced. What has >> changed that? > >I respect your points to defend cycleway, and to tag the "pedestrians allowed" > >by adding a foot=yes, but I'm quite sure the original problem in belgium was >not quite a "pedestrian only" case. > >The fact is, that here in france (but I think this is the same case in >belgium) we have those "so called" cycleway where are allowed : >- bicycle >- pedestrian >- skate boards >- roller blades >- pedestrian with dogs >- wheel chair >- small plastic cars for children >etc. > >Will anyone tag this : >highway=cycleway;foot=yes;skate=yes;roller=yes; ? > >Will anyone tag this : >highway=rollerway;foot=yes;cycleway=yes;... ? Well, in .nl, skate boards, roller blades, etc. are all considered pedestrians. So, unless OSM wants to introduce those categories, there is only the issue of whether the default access rules for routing programs should allow pedestrians on cycleways or not. Just for reference, in .nl cycleways are indicated by http://stereo.hq.phicoh.net/osm/Verplicht%20fietspad.png (though http://stereo.hq.phicoh.net/osm/Onverplicht%20fietspad.png and http://stereo.hq.phicoh.net/osm/Fiets-%20en%20bromfietspad.png an issue) And there is nothing 'so called' about those cycleways. just like there is nothing 'so called' about primary roads when there is no sidewalk and people are just walking on the road (with or without skate boards, roller blades, or small plastic cars). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways
> highway=cycleway;foot=yes > > used to work very well before highway=path has been introduced. What has > changed that? I respect your points to defend cycleway, and to tag the "pedestrians allowed" by adding a foot=yes, but I'm quite sure the original problem in belgium was not quite a "pedestrian only" case. The fact is, that here in france (but I think this is the same case in belgium) we have those "so called" cycleway where are allowed : - bicycle - pedestrian - skate boards - roller blades - pedestrian with dogs - wheel chair - small plastic cars for children etc. Will anyone tag this : highway=cycleway;foot=yes;skate=yes;roller=yes; ? Will anyone tag this : highway=rollerway;foot=yes;cycleway=yes;... ? > For cycleways that allow pedestrians? Sounds quite restricted ;-) Well, I tag them highway=path, and that's not restricted, it correspond to the reallity : "open to all non-motorized vehicles" ... more thinking about that ... The problem here, might not come from path, or cycleway, but from the access keys. Those keys are too restricted, and too specific. So too badly usable. I'm probably dreaming here, but a classification schem would have been of more use here : - non_wheeled - non_motorized - car_sized - truck - explosive So, in that case, yeah, we would have simplified and dropped path/cycleway/footway/track replacing it by : highway=primary non_motorized=yes ( thus describing a major cycleway in only two tags ) -- Sylvain Letuffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:53:11AM +0200, sylvain letuffe wrote: > I think that what you need is not a cycleway anymore, because pedestrian are > allowed. highway=cycleway;foot=yes used to work very well before highway=path has been introduced. What has changed that? > Luckyly, the higwhay=path is made for that For cycleways that allow pedestrians? Sounds quite restricted ;-) spaetz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways
In your letter dated Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:53:11 +0200 you wrote: > >> This seems to reflect the situation in Germany. However, in Belgium and >> The >> Netherlands, the default is that pedestrians are allowed on cycle tracks. > >I think that what you need is not a cycleway anymore, because pedestrian are >allowed. > >Luckyly, the higwhay=path is made for that By definition, highway=cycleway is equivalent to "highway=path + bicycle=designated". So I don't see the point of that remark. And in some countries pedestrians are allowed on trunk roads as well, so maybe those should also be tagged as 'highway=path'? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways
In your letter dated Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:41:11 +0200 you wrote:
>Czech Republic:
>There are very few dedicated cycleways. Most other cycleways are either
>completely mixed with pedestrian ways (e. g. in Prague) or one half of
>the way is pedestrian and the other is cycleway (e. g. Pardubice).
>
>Well, it's a question, whether such ways should be tagged as
>highway=cycleway;foot=yes (as proposes wiki)
>or
>highway=pedestrian;bicycle=designated
>or
>highway=pedestrian;bicycle=yes
>or
>change the default and use highway=cycleway
>
>Changing the default is ugly as invalidates existing tags.
I'd say that you tag according to the main use of the track. In .nl there is
quite a bit of difference between walking on a cyclepath or walking on a
footpath. The same thing goes for bikes that are allowed on footpaths compared
to cycling on cyclepath.
I would tag anything where pedestrians have more rights than they have on
normal roads as 'highway= footway'. If only as reminder to any cyclists that
they have to be more careful.
>default-access tables on the wiki is not a good idea, as it would
>complicate routing software, which has to assign country to each
>cycleway without foot tag.
I personally think it is best if routing software would do exactly that. But
that the moment, just documenting the situation in various countries is, in
my opinion, worthwhile.
Routing software can just implement the 'Default' table at the top of the
page.
>In Czech Republic there are also so called "cycle traces"
>("cyklotrasy"). They are a standard (e. g. tertiary) roads dedicated to
>motorcars with no bike lane, but with "cycle way" traffic sign:
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.07943&lon=14.4143&zoom=17&layers=00B0FFF
Sorry, I can't figure out what you mean with that.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:53 AM, sylvain letuffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> This seems to reflect the situation in Germany. However, in Belgium and >> The >> Netherlands, the default is that pedestrians are allowed on cycle tracks. > > I think that what you need is not a cycleway anymore, because pedestrian are > allowed. Your statement is incorrect. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:53:11AM +0200, sylvain letuffe wrote: > > > This seems to reflect the situation in Germany. However, in Belgium and > > The > > Netherlands, the default is that pedestrians are allowed on cycle tracks. > > I think that what you need is not a cycleway anymore, because pedestrian are > allowed. > > Luckyly, the higwhay=path is made for that > > > Except that it doesn't seem like that. You might believe so, but *noone* renders a plain highway=path - which means noone is gonna use it. -- - Vegard Engen, member of the first RFC1149 implementation team. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways
On 13 Oct 2008, at 10:53, sylvain letuffe wrote: This seems to reflect the situation in Germany. However, in Belgium and The Netherlands, the default is that pedestrians are allowed on cycle tracks. I think that what you need is not a cycleway anymore, because pedestrian are allowed. If it is a signed cycle route (with the exception of a short section where cyclists need to dismount), or there is signage to allow cyclists to use that, then it should be highway=cycleway; foot=yes, with an optional segregated=yes if there is a line or kerb for cyclists and pedestrians to be kept apart. Luckily, the higwhay=path is made for that I'm don't understand the point of the highway=path tag. -- Sylvain Letuffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways
> This seems to reflect the situation in Germany. However, in Belgium and > The > Netherlands, the default is that pedestrians are allowed on cycle tracks. I think that what you need is not a cycleway anymore, because pedestrian are allowed. Luckyly, the higwhay=path is made for that -- Sylvain Letuffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways
Philip Homburg píše v Ne 12. 10. 2008 v 23:42 +0200:
> The 'OSM tags for routing/Access-Restrictions' page
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions
> has it that pedestrians are not allowed on cycleways unless an explicit
> 'foot=yes' is added.
>
> This seems to reflect the situation in Germany. However, in Belgium and The
> Netherlands, the default is that pedestrians are allowed on cycle tracks.
>
> I'd like to invite people to provide input on how the rules are in other
> countries, preferably by adding default-access tables to the wiki page.
Czech Republic:
There are very few dedicated cycleways. Most other cycleways are either
completely mixed with pedestrian ways (e. g. in Prague) or one half of
the way is pedestrian and the other is cycleway (e. g. Pardubice).
Well, it's a question, whether such ways should be tagged as
highway=cycleway;foot=yes (as proposes wiki)
or
highway=pedestrian;bicycle=designated
or
highway=pedestrian;bicycle=yes
or
change the default and use highway=cycleway
Changing the default is ugly as invalidates existing tags.
default-access tables on the wiki is not a good idea, as it would
complicate routing software, which has to assign country to each
cycleway without foot tag.
In Czech Republic there are also so called "cycle traces"
("cyklotrasy"). They are a standard (e. g. tertiary) roads dedicated to
motorcars with no bike lane, but with "cycle way" traffic sign:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.07943&lon=14.4143&zoom=17&layers=00B0FFF
Stanislav Brabec
http://www.penguin.cz/~utx
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Pedestrians on cycleways
The 'OSM tags for routing/Access-Restrictions' page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions has it that pedestrians are not allowed on cycleways unless an explicit 'foot=yes' is added. This seems to reflect the situation in Germany. However, in Belgium and The Netherlands, the default is that pedestrians are allowed on cycle tracks. I'd like to invite people to provide input on how the rules are in other countries, preferably by adding default-access tables to the wiki page. Philip Homburg ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
