Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Nop A very good way of trying to draw some of the thoughts together - although a very challenging project! Full marks for the effort anyway! I have added a few extra bits and pieces to the wiki page to highlight some more existing tags and practices that probably need to be brought into a consolidation attempt. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: ekkeh...@gmx.de [mailto:ekkeh...@gmx.de] Sent: 19 August 2009 16:22 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway Hi! The discussion has died down again. Much was said and I even had the impression that there was a little progress in some details. But, as usual, we don't have a result. Therefore I have started a consolidation page in the wiki to collect the problems, use cases and ideas for resolving them. I would like to invite all of you who are interested in working on the matter to contribute your recollection to the page and maybe develop it into a solution proposal that is not a one-man endeavour but well discussed by a group of people. You'll find the start of it here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path Once we have collected the pieces from this discussion, it might be a good idea to invite folks on national mailing lists to join in and contribute their use cases. bye Nop -- Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen: Internet Explorer 8 und Mozilla Firefox 3 - sicherer, schneller und einfacher! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atbrowser ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Nop wrote: Hatto von Hatzfeld schrieb: Official is new and has only one meaning. From Map features: official is used for ways dedicated to a certain mode of travel by law. Usually indicated by a traffic sign. I really do not see where the use of designated has differed from this definition. Which of the 5 definitions of designated do you mean? :-) *You* talked about 5 different meanings documented in the wiki. I found that all of them say something like specially designated (typically by a government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport. You missed my central point when you skipped this phrase in your answer. Just read this topic from the beginning and you should understand. I have read most of this discussion - but instead of reading it twice I prefer to go out for mapping some cycleways ... By the way: Just read http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2008-December/031057.html (and the following discussion) and you should understand what I mean. Bye, Hatto ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Whiteleggnick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: In the UK I would tag such a path as foot=designated;bicycle=permissive; and pragmatically highway=footway for the moment, using the generally-accepted definition of footway as urban surfaced path (though would prefer highway=path; surface=paved) That is not the definition of footway. highway=footway is For designated footpaths, i.e. mainly/exclusively for pedestrians. that's the recent wiki recommendation, but I guess footway is far older than this definition from Jan 08. Don't know how many footways have been in the db till then and how many were added afterwards not corresponding to this definition, but might be lots ;-) Sure, but perpetuating deprecated definitions via the mailing list without specifically indicating them as such (deprecated) is IMHO damaging. My comment on footway meaning urban surfaced path was based on many recent mailing list discussions which seem to indicate that there was a tendency to use footway for urban paths and path for mud/dirt/rock paths in the countryside. Based on that perceived tendency, plus my own preferences, that's what I've been doing recently. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Roy Wallace wrote: On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Richard Mannrichard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: The deprecation of footway/cycleway was voted on (by not many people, but nevertheless), and the deprecation was rejected, but some people don't seem to be able to take no for an answer. It was? Maybe that was before my time. On http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Path you may count how many people approved the proposal but explicitly opposed the deprecation of existing tags. Hatto ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2009/8/13 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de: Proposal #2: Introduce offical dedication Leave old tags as they are and accept that foot/cycleway and designated are as fuzzy as described above. Clarify that these tags only give information on possible use, but not about the legal situation. Introduce a new tag biclyce/foot=official to tag the strict use case of road-signed ways or corresponding legal dedication. This way, nothing needs to be changed in existing fuzzy tagging, but real foot/cycleways are simply tagged by adding an official or changing designated to official if appropriate. IMHO if this solution is chosen we should also deprecate designated, as it is of no more use, and would just lead to possible problems when contradictory to official. I appreciate Nop's proposal - but why replace designated by official? I do not see that designated has been used in the past with a meaning differing from what official would be used for in future. Or did I miss anything in this discussion? Hatto ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hatto von Hatzfeld wrote: On http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Path you may count how many people approved the proposal but explicitly opposed the deprecation of existing tags. Yes, many participants opposed the deprecation, as did I. However, I wanted to keep those tags as clearly defined shortcuts for common key combinations (that is, highway=footway e.g. should be exactly the same as highway=path + foot=designated), simply to ease transition and save some typing effort. Right now, however, people are trying to interpret some additional meaning into the path vs. *way distinction that originally wasn't there at all. (Things like paved surface, urban vs. rural, intentionally maintained etc.) This is definitely *not* what I voted for. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
... but, rightly or wrongly, I do not think I am alone in using highway=footway for all paths intended primarily for pedestrians whether urban or rural, designated or not, designation=anything - the only real exception I make is (mostly) in rural areas where the path is clearly informal and of undefined status, where I would use highway=path. I arrive at this after a very long recycle of messages earlier on in this same discussion group and it is also consistent with http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_public_rights_of_way . Please understand that I am not arguing a case here - merely recording what I currently do and why I do it. Once again it would appear that there are inconsistencies both in practice and within the different pages of the wiki. This is not surprising but it does, understandably, give rise to confusion and to lengthy discussions (witness the length of this thread). How to resolve? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Nick Whitelegg [mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk] Sent: 17 August 2009 09:14 To: Roy Wallace Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway Whiteleggnick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: In the UK I would tag such a path as foot=designated;bicycle=permissive; and pragmatically highway=footway for the moment, using the generally-accepted definition of footway as urban surfaced path (though would prefer highway=path; surface=paved) That is not the definition of footway. highway=footway is For designated footpaths, i.e. mainly/exclusively for pedestrians. that's the recent wiki recommendation, but I guess footway is far older than this definition from Jan 08. Don't know how many footways have been in the db till then and how many were added afterwards not corresponding to this definition, but might be lots ;-) Sure, but perpetuating deprecated definitions via the mailing list without specifically indicating them as such (deprecated) is IMHO damaging. My comment on footway meaning urban surfaced path was based on many recent mailing list discussions which seem to indicate that there was a tendency to use footway for urban paths and path for mud/dirt/rock paths in the countryside. Based on that perceived tendency, plus my own preferences, that's what I've been doing recently. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
... but, rightly or wrongly, I do not think I am alone in using highway=footway for all paths intended primarily for pedestrians whether urban or rural, designated or not, designation=anything - the only real exception I make is (mostly) in rural areas where the path is clearly informal and of undefined status, where I would use highway=path. I arrive at this after a very long recycle of messages earlier on in this same discussion group and it is also consistent with http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_public_rights_of_way . This was originally my page, I have to admit, but is old, and came about before the widespread use of path. I could change it to my own feelings on the matter but given the sensitivity to changing wiki pages on tagging, I'm not sure whether I should ;-) Please understand that I am not arguing a case here - merely recording what I currently do and why I do it. Once again it would appear that there are inconsistencies both in practice and within the different pages of the wiki. This is not surprising but it does, understandably, give rise to confusion and to lengthy discussions (witness the length of this thread). How to resolve? Mike Harris Each country (or at least, each country with significant off-road mapping being done) could have a group of people with significant experience in countryside mapping (thinking walkers and off road cyclists) who could sit down (figuratively speaking, more likely communicate over the net) and thrash out the requirements of their own country, and come up with a catch-all proposal. Then, representatives of each country group could compare notes and thrash out an internationally-acceptable proposal. My own feeling is we need agreement otherwise the renderer rules have to get more and more (and more) complex! The recommendation should be just that, not a thou shalt follow or else rule, but the renderers would then follow the recommendation. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
2009/8/17 Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com: ... but, rightly or wrongly, I do not think I am alone in using highway=footway for all paths intended primarily for pedestrians whether urban or rural, designated or not, designation=anything +1 - the only real exception I make is (mostly) in rural areas where the path is clearly informal and of undefined status, where I would use highway=path. not to forget, that those paths are IMHO the most important, as they are usually not covered in other maps, but indicate the need (and solution) for a connection ;-) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! Hatto von Hatzfeld schrieb: I appreciate Nop's proposal - but why replace designated by official? I do not see that designated has been used in the past with a meaning differing from what official would be used for in future. Or did I miss anything in this discussion? Yes. :-) Designated is linked to footway/cycleway and there are about 5 different interpretations on what it means, all of them documented somewhere in the Wiki. Official is new and has only one meaning. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Nop wrote: Hatto von Hatzfeld schrieb: I appreciate Nop's proposal - but why replace designated by official? I do not see that designated has been used in the past with a meaning differing from what official would be used for in future. Designated is linked to footway/cycleway and there are about 5 different interpretations on what it means, all of them documented somewhere in the Wiki. You are exaggerating. They all say something like specially designated (typically by a government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport. Official is new and has only one meaning. From Map features: official is used for ways dedicated to a certain mode of travel by law. Usually indicated by a traffic sign. I really do not see where the use of designated has differed from this definition. Hatto ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! Hatto von Hatzfeld schrieb: Official is new and has only one meaning. From Map features: official is used for ways dedicated to a certain mode of travel by law. Usually indicated by a traffic sign. I really do not see where the use of designated has differed from this definition. Which of the 5 definitions of designated do you mean? :-) Just read this topic from the beginning and you should understand. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
So a public footpath which the council has converted into a cycleway (part of a future cycle network if the council ever commit funds to complete their decade old plan) which is segregated in some sections and unsegregated in others is possibly a footway with bicycle=permissive? I think I?ve currently got it tagged as a cycleway with designation=public_footpath (as the public footpath signs are still there, despite the ?upgrade?). Bold formatting below added by me. Ed Yes, I would say so, though I'm not sure of the law on council-designated cycleways. I would guess they aren't true public rights of way for cyclists, and the permission could be removed at any time without the same legal protection that true rights of way have. In the UK I would tag such a path as foot=designated;bicycle=permissive; and pragmatically highway=footway for the moment, using the generally-accepted definition of footway as urban surfaced path (though would prefer highway=path; surface=paved) Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Roy Interesting - I'd not looked at that one. I have myself already been confusing the wiki pages for 'designated' and 'designation'. The one that I tend to favour in terms of my own mapping (heavily oriented towards off-road and tights of way in England) is 'designation' http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation . This works quite well for me - when used as an expression of formal legal status, together with the existing apparently most common practice in England of using highway=footway/bridleway/byway/track/path/cycleway as the primary tag + foot/bicycle/horse/motorcar=yes/no as a description of the situation on the ground and/or signed + surface= or tracktype= for the actual condition as seen on the ground + access= used only in a limited way to indicate privacy or similar restrictions. I got there by an evolutionary process and it does seem to cover most of what I need. But I would be the first to admit that that doesn't make it right for anyone else or 'right' in any 'absolute' sense. What the use of designation= helped most with was separating out a description of legal/administrative status (mostly derived from publicly available and non-copyright sources developed by highway authorities) from the more usual description of what was 'on the ground' or could be deduced from signage. The latter is of general utility; the more legal stuff is very useful for those of us concerned with rights of way in England and Wales and is also slowly making OSM more useful to local authorities (and others who have their own problems with over-enthusiastic OS licensing). It also adds something to OSM that is NOT on OS maps - as they their recording of rights of way is quite often very out of date and quite often erroneous. Happy mapping anyway! Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com] Sent: 15 August 2009 23:37 To: Mike Harris Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; Nick Whitelegg Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Mike Harrismik...@googlemail.com wrote: Roy Could you give reference to your wiki quote? I can see for =designated at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated QUOTE This tag indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically by a government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport. UNQUOTE There is apparently, perhaps unsurprisingly, some ambiguity in the wiki. Sure - my quotes were from: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access. This needs to be cleared up. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
2009/8/16 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: Whiteleggnick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: In the UK I would tag such a path as foot=designated;bicycle=permissive; and pragmatically highway=footway for the moment, using the generally-accepted definition of footway as urban surfaced path (though would prefer highway=path; surface=paved) That is not the definition of footway. highway=footway is For designated footpaths, i.e. mainly/exclusively for pedestrians. that's the recent wiki recommendation, but I guess footway is far older than this definition from Jan 08. Don't know how many footways have been in the db till then and how many were added afterwards not corresponding to this definition, but might be lots ;-) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Martin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/16 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: Whiteleggnick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: In the UK I would tag such a path as foot=designated;bicycle=permissive; and pragmatically highway=footway for the moment, using the generally-accepted definition of footway as urban surfaced path (though would prefer highway=path; surface=paved) That is not the definition of footway. highway=footway is For designated footpaths, i.e. mainly/exclusively for pedestrians. that's the recent wiki recommendation, but I guess footway is far older than this definition from Jan 08. Don't know how many footways have been in the db till then and how many were added afterwards not corresponding to this definition, but might be lots ;-) Sure, but perpetuating deprecated definitions via the mailing list without specifically indicating them as such (deprecated) is IMHO damaging. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Jason Cunningham wrote: Agree here. UK bridleways for instance should have foot=designated; horse=designated; bicycle=designated as all three have equal right. It would be a mistake to assume the horse rights are greater than foot/bicycle; they are not. I would similarly guess the shared foot/cycleways in Germany would be similar, i.e. foot=designated; bicycle=designated. After looking at the British Ramblers Association website today it does not appear cyclists have equal rights on Bridelways. This website give advice on access rights to footpaths etc in the UK, and it says Pedal cyclists have a right to use bridleways, restricted byways and byways open to all traffic, but on bridleways they must give way to walkers and riders. Like horse riders, they have no right to use footpaths and if they do so they are committing a trespass against the owner of the land, unless use is by permission (see Q26 http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/britain/footpathlaw/footpathlaw2.htm#trespass). As with horse-riding (see Q10 http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/britain/footpathlaw/footpathlaw.htm#horses), use of any right of way by cyclists can be controlled by traffic regulation orders and byelaws imposed by local authorities. Infringement of byelaws or orders is a criminal offence. Under the Highways Act 1835, it is an offence to ride a bicycle on the pavement at the side of a road, and under the Fixed Penalty Offences Order 1999 a person who rides on a pavement can be fined on the spot by a police officer. It is probably worth adding that in some areas a bridleway may be restricted to horse use only to allow cantering and the like without the risk of encountering other obstructions. These are normally routes with reasonably good visibility so that exercising the horse is safe. And I believe that restriction would apply even to the land owner who could not permit private use by bikes - although in reality it is probably the land owner who has made the provision for exercising their own livestock anyway ;) bicycle=secondary is probably more accurate in a number of instances. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Roy Could you give reference to your wiki quote? I can see for =designated at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated QUOTE This tag indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically by a government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport. UNQUOTE There is apparently, perhaps unsurprisingly, some ambiguity in the wiki. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com] Sent: 14 August 2009 23:57 To: Nick Whitelegg Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Nick Whiteleggnick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Silly question, maybe: but, what does yes actually mean? Everyone seems to use it differently; it was intended originally for a legal right but in practice has been used in a range of scenarios. In this particular case (Fahrräder frei marked footways), do cyclists have a *legal* right to use the footway, or is it an unoffical, revokable right? If the former, designated would seem appropriate; if the latter permissive would seem the most appropriate. This is a good question. To quote from the wiki: yes: The public have official, legally-enshrined right of access, i.e. it's a right of way. no: Access by this transport mode is not permitted, they don't have a right of way. designated: The route is marked as being a preferred route, usually for a specific vehicle type or types. Thankfully, no is the opposite of yes. I would prefer that designated was used for signed, and yes/no was discouraged, but used for fuzzy judgements where useful e.g. suitability, preferred-ness, etc. As for how it's used in practice, hopefully everyone follows the wiki, right? :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Jason is technically correct. The use of England/Wales bridleways by cyclists is a lesser right than that held by pedestrians and riders. It was added relatively recently (before, cyclists were not allowed on bridleways under common law) and is subject both to the 'give way to others' rule cited but also is not quite universal as the right of access is a default right from central government that can be overridden by regulations made locally (although I have yet to find an example of this). The reference is the Countryside Act (1968) §30: 1. Any member of the public shall have, as a right of way, the right to ride a bicycle, not being a mechanically propelled vehicle, on any bridleway, but in exercising that right cyclists shall give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback. 2. Subsection (1) above has effect subject to any orders made by a local authority, and to any byelaws. Nevertheless I would myself still tag as foot/horse/bicycle all 'designated' as this is at least the default and the 'give way' rule does not remove the cyclists' right (but how I wish that all bikes had bells and all cyclists USED them!). Mike Harris _ From: Jason Cunningham [mailto:jamicu...@googlemail.com] Sent: 15 August 2009 00:41 To: Nick Whitelegg; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway Agree here. UK bridleways for instance should have foot=designated; horse=designated; bicycle=designated as all three have equal right. It would be a mistake to assume the horse rights are greater than foot/bicycle; they are not. I would similarly guess the shared foot/cycleways in Germany would be similar, i.e. foot=designated; bicycle=designated. Nick After looking at the British Ramblers Association website today it does not appear cyclists have equal rights on Bridelways. This website give advice on access rights to footpaths etc in the UK, and it says Pedal cyclists have a right to use bridleways, restricted byways and byways open to all traffic, but on bridleways they must give way to walkers and riders. Like horse riders, they have no right to use footpaths and if they do so they are committing a trespass against the owner of the land, unless use is by permission (see http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/britain/footpathlaw/footpathlaw2.htm#trespa ss Q26). As with horse-riding (see http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/britain/footpathlaw/footpathlaw.htm#horses Q10), use of any right of way by cyclists can be controlled by traffic regulation orders and byelaws imposed by local authorities. Infringement of byelaws or orders is a criminal offence. Under the Highways Act 1835, it is an offence to ride a bicycle on the pavement at the side of a road, and under the Fixed Penalty Offences Order 1999 a person who rides on a pavement can be fined on the spot by a police officer. Jason jamicu http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
So a public footpath which the council has converted into a cycleway (part of a future cycle network if the council ever commit funds to complete their decade old plan) which is segregated in some sections and unsegregated in others is possibly a footway with bicycle=permissive? I think I’ve currently got it tagged as a cycleway with designation=public_footpath (as the public footpath signs are still there, despite the “upgrade”). Bold formatting below added by me. Ed _ From: Jason Cunningham [mailto:jamicu...@googlemail.com] Sent: 15 August 2009 00:41 To: Nick Whitelegg; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway After looking at the British Ramblers Association website today it does not appear cyclists have equal rights on Bridelways. This website give advice on access rights to footpaths etc in the UK, and it says Pedal cyclists have a right to use bridleways, restricted byways and byways open to all traffic, but on bridleways they must give way to walkers and riders. Like horse riders, they have no right to use footpaths and if they do so they are committing a trespass against the owner of the land, unless use is by permission (see http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/britain/footpathlaw/footpathlaw2.ht m#trespass Q26). As with horse-riding (see http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/britain/footpathlaw/footpathlaw.htm #horses Q10), use of any right of way by cyclists can be controlled by traffic regulation orders and byelaws imposed by local authorities. Infringement of byelaws or orders is a criminal offence. Under the Highways Act 1835, it is an offence to ride a bicycle on the pavement at the side of a road, and under the Fixed Penalty Offences Order 1999 a person who rides on a pavement can be fined on the spot by a police officer. Jason jamicu http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi Ed 1. I think that it is designation=public_footpath, foot=yes, bicycle=permissive unless (a) it is a public bridleway, or (b) signed to indicate that a local authority has added bicycle rights (as they may - although this seems to happen almost always only in urban areas). 2. But if 1(a) or 1(b) applies then I would say designation=public_footpath, foot=yes, bicycle=yes. Mike Harris _ From: Ed Loach [mailto:e...@loach.me.uk] Sent: 15 August 2009 13:01 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway So a public footpath which the council has converted into a cycleway (part of a future cycle network if the council ever commit funds to complete their decade old plan) which is segregated in some sections and unsegregated in others is possibly a footway with bicycle=permissive? I think I’ve currently got it tagged as a cycleway with designation=public_footpath (as the public footpath signs are still there, despite the “upgrade”). Bold formatting below added by me. Ed _ From: Jason Cunningham [mailto:jamicu...@googlemail.com] Sent: 15 August 2009 00:41 To: Nick Whitelegg; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway After looking at the British Ramblers Association website today it does not appear cyclists have equal rights on Bridelways. This website give advice on access rights to footpaths etc in the UK, and it says Pedal cyclists have a right to use bridleways, restricted byways and byways open to all traffic, but on bridleways they must give way to walkers and riders. Like horse riders, they have no right to use footpaths and if they do so they are committing a trespass against the owner of the land, unless use is by permission (see http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/britain/footpathlaw/footpathlaw2.htm#trespa ss Q26). As with horse-riding (see http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/britain/footpathlaw/footpathlaw.htm#horses Q10), use of any right of way by cyclists can be controlled by traffic regulation orders and byelaws imposed by local authorities. Infringement of byelaws or orders is a criminal offence. Under the Highways Act 1835, it is an offence to ride a bicycle on the pavement at the side of a road, and under the Fixed Penalty Offences Order 1999 a person who rides on a pavement can be fined on the spot by a police officer. Jason jamicu http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Mike Harrismik...@googlemail.com wrote: Roy Could you give reference to your wiki quote? I can see for =designated at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated QUOTE This tag indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically by a government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport. UNQUOTE There is apparently, perhaps unsurprisingly, some ambiguity in the wiki. Sure - my quotes were from: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access. This needs to be cleared up. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Roy writes: If footway/cycleway is fuzzy in terms of current usage (and I believe it is), then +1. But I would personally prefer that designated mean signed. This stays true to mapping what is on the ground, and separates legal issues from geographical/physical features, as others have suggested. I think this is in line with the current usage of designated (correct me if I'm wrong). But have you seen? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated Which has solved a host of problems and ambiguities for me at least. This is a very clear - not 'fuzzy' - definition and the loss of it would be very damaging to the right-of-way mapping projects in the UK at least. It saves a lot of argument about subjective judgements of what tag best describes what is on the ground. No objection adding an extra tag for signpost if that's wanted - but it leaves ambiguities as to whether the signpost has any legal implication or whether an unsigned path (many of them!) carries legal rights of access. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com] Sent: 13 August 2009 23:06 To: Nop Cc: talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Nopekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: First of all, we would need to agree that there actually is a problem and that we need to (re)define something to clarify it. There have again been many mails along the line It is easy and can all be done following existing definitions - if it is done my way. But this is simply not true, the wiki _is_ contradicting itself. +1 Proposal #1: Unjoin designated Get rid of the idea that cycleway is the same thing as bicycle=designated. Accept that foot/cycleway is fuzzy. Redefine designated to be only used for legally dedicated ways. Likewise seperate foot=designated from footway. If footway/cycleway is fuzzy in terms of current usage (and I believe it is), then +1. But I would personally prefer that designated mean signed. This stays true to mapping what is on the ground, and separates legal issues from geographical/physical features, as others have suggested. I think this is in line with the current usage of designated (correct me if I'm wrong). For example, in Australia you may be legally allowed to ride a bicycle on a footpath, but I don't think anyone would ever tag such a footpath as bicycle=designated. You can often legally ride a bike on an Australian road, but again, I would never tag such a road with bicycle=designated. This way, foot/cycleway can be used for the lenient use cases like today, but designated can be used to tag the strict use cases. I'd recommend highway=path with *=yes for the lenient use cases (which would make footway/cycleway redundant). But I've been told that highway=path has already been voted against in the past :( Proposal #2: Introduce offical dedication Leave old tags as they are and accept that foot/cycleway and designated are as fuzzy as described above. Clarify that these tags only give information on possible use, but not about the legal situation. Introduce a new tag biclyce/foot=official to tag the strict use case of road-signed ways or corresponding legal dedication. I don't really see the advantage of having a fuzzy definition of designated. I would recommend using yes to indicate a fuzzy recommendation or suitability. And if you don't think suitability should be tagged, you could feel free to ignore the *=yes tags. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
+1 Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Nop [mailto:ekkeh...@gmx.de] Sent: 13 August 2009 23:43 To: Roy Wallace Cc: talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway Hi! Roy Wallace schrieb: If footway/cycleway is fuzzy in terms of current usage (and I believe it is), then +1. But I would personally prefer that designated mean signed. This stays true to mapping what is on the ground, and separates legal issues from geographical/physical features, as others have suggested. I think this is in line with the current usage of designated (correct me if I'm wrong). For example, in Australia you may be legally allowed to ride a bicycle on a footpath, but I don't think anyone would ever tag such a footpath as bicycle=designated. You can often legally ride a bike on an Australian road, but again, I would never tag such a road with bicycle=designated. Clarification: What I meant is: Designated only for ways legally dedicated to one mode of travel. Usually that means individually road-signed, but it could also be done for a whole area like a nature reserve with a declaration for all ways inside. You could also say: Designated means designated by the government. But in this approach, ways that are just waymarked as a route are _not_ designated. A cycle route often runs on a tertiary highway, but that doesn't make the highway a designated cycleway. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
... That is current practice - there is no implication of exclusivity only that a legal right of use exists for a class of users. A restricted byway in England and Wales is for example, foot=designated, horse=designated, bicycle=designated (as there are legal rights for all non-motorised traffic); it is also motorcar=no, motorcycle=no; the condition can be described with either a surface= or a tracktype= tag. It should be signed (and mostly is at the moment at each end as it is a very new legal category and the signs have yet to be wrecked) but I wouldn't bother to add signed= as it does not give the user much in the way of additional information once they know it is a restricted byway. The question that is currently the main subject of debate in this thread seems to be the primary one as to the type of highway. Should it be highway=restricted_byway, highway=byway, highway=track, highway=path ... I would currently use the first of these as being the most specific (and, yes, it is documented on the wiki) - but I appreciate that there are ambiguities that are being discussed in the thread. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com] Sent: 13 August 2009 23:54 To: Nop Cc: talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Nopekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: Clarification: What I meant is: Designated only for ways legally dedicated to one mode of travel. Usually that means individually road-signed, but it could also be done for a whole area like a nature reserve with a declaration for all ways inside. You could also say: Designated means designated by the government. I would prefer that designated does not infer exclusively designated, so that it's possible to have bicycle=designated as well as foot=designated on a shared pathway (signed with a picture of a person and a picture of a bicycle). Designated != Dedicated ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: highway=footway (not suitable) bicycle=dedicated (signed) A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me. why not? In Germany: sign footway + additional sign: Fahrräder frei That's yes, not designated. Silly question, maybe: but, what does yes actually mean? Everyone seems to use it differently; it was intended originally for a legal right but in practice has been used in a range of scenarios. In this particular case (Fahrräder frei marked footways), do cyclists have a *legal* right to use the footway, or is it an unoffical, revokable right? If the former, designated would seem appropriate; if the latter permissive would seem the most appropriate. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
I would prefer that designated does not infer exclusively designated, so that it's possible to have bicycle=designated as well as foot=designated on a shared pathway (signed with a picture of a person and a picture of a bicycle). Agree here. UK bridleways for instance should have foot=designated; horse=designated; bicycle=designated as all three have equal right. It would be a mistake to assume the horse rights are greater than foot/bicycle; they are not. I would similarly guess the shared foot/cycleways in Germany would be similar, i.e. foot=designated; bicycle=designated. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! Nick Whitelegg schrieb: I would prefer that designated does not infer exclusively designated, so that it's possible to have bicycle=designated as well as foot=designated on a shared pathway (signed with a picture of a person and a picture of a bicycle). Agree here. UK bridleways for instance should have foot=designated; horse=designated; bicycle=designated as all three have equal right. It would be a mistake to assume the horse rights are greater than foot/bicycle; they are not. I would similarly guess the shared foot/cycleways in Germany would be similar, i.e. foot=designated; bicycle=designated. Yes, this would work out. And a German bridleway would be horse=dsignated, foot=no, bicycle=no. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
2009/8/14 Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk: Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: highway=footway (not suitable) bicycle=dedicated (signed) A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me. why not? In Germany: sign footway + additional sign: Fahrräder frei That's yes, not designated. Silly question, maybe: but, what does yes actually mean? Everyone seems to use it differently; it was intended originally for a legal right but in practice has been used in a range of scenarios. In this particular case (Fahrräder frei marked footways), do cyclists have a *legal* right to use the footway, or is it an unoffical, revokable right? they have the right, but it is less strong than on a cycleway, the pedestrians have the right-of-way over the cyclists, and cyclists must not drive faster than x km/h and be more cautious than on a cycleway. It is a different implication than a cycleway. (btw: these are fine details and probably not only regarding Germany, but other countries as well, but it might not be general knowledge and is therefore probably sometimes ignored by the mappers). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
2009/8/14 Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk: On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 13:08 +0200, Nick Whitelegg wrote: [In Norway you can legally cycle on footways; in England you can't] Using the designated value appropriately would work with both. In England, tag with highway=path (or track); foot=designated. In Norway, tag with highway=path (or track); foot=designated; bicycle=designated. This doesn't sound quite right to me. If it is signed as a footway in Norway (picture of a pedestrian only, no bike [1]), it is sometimes allowed to cycle there, but only if there are not too many pedestrians and only at walking speed. Sorry, my comment was based on someone saying that in Norway, bikes could use footpaths, and me assuming it was a full legal right. This does make things a bit more difficult as I have not come across these sorts of in between rights before. However I'm not sure that highway=footway is the answer. Someone should ideally not need knowledge of local laws: as someone from the UK I can instantly tell that I'm not supposed to walk on German bridleways (see another message) if they are tagged with the generic, international tags of foot=no; horse=designated; bicycle=no. Likewise someone from Germany, say, can instantly tell that they can walk, or cycle, on a UK bridleway. yes, if you would tag foot=yes, but I guess you usually never did this, because you thought everybody would know that you could walk there. so it comes down to the general observation, that different countries have different defaults, and how to deal with it. There are 2 main possibilities: 1. tag on every single way all worldwide thinkable keys 2. document the implicit defaults somewhere in a standardized form, be it wiki or database of course, there would also be 3. don't document and refer to local legislation. Therefore it should be clear how to express local traffic signs in an unambigous way into tags. and 4. do 2 in an non-standardized form but 3 and 4 are not very reliable and practical, e.g. if you wanted to make a router that works worldwide it would be too timeconsuming to get all the rules. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Nick Whiteleggnick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Silly question, maybe: but, what does yes actually mean? Everyone seems to use it differently; it was intended originally for a legal right but in practice has been used in a range of scenarios. In this particular case (Fahrräder frei marked footways), do cyclists have a *legal* right to use the footway, or is it an unoffical, revokable right? If the former, designated would seem appropriate; if the latter permissive would seem the most appropriate. This is a good question. To quote from the wiki: yes: The public have official, legally-enshrined right of access, i.e. it's a right of way. no: Access by this transport mode is not permitted, they don't have a right of way. designated: The route is marked as being a preferred route, usually for a specific vehicle type or types. Thankfully, no is the opposite of yes. I would prefer that designated was used for signed, and yes/no was discouraged, but used for fuzzy judgements where useful e.g. suitability, preferred-ness, etc. As for how it's used in practice, hopefully everyone follows the wiki, right? :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Agree here. UK bridleways for instance should have foot=designated; horse=designated; bicycle=designated as all three have equal right. It would be a mistake to assume the horse rights are greater than foot/bicycle; they are not. I would similarly guess the shared foot/cycleways in Germany would be similar, i.e. foot=designated; bicycle=designated. Nick After looking at the British Ramblers Association website today it does not appear cyclists have equal rights on Bridelways. This website give advice on access rights to footpaths etc in the UK, and it says Pedal cyclists have a right to use bridleways, restricted byways and byways open to all traffic, but on bridleways they must give way to walkers and riders. Like horse riders, they have no right to use footpaths and if they do so they are committing a trespass against the owner of the land, unless use is by permission (see Q26http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/britain/footpathlaw/footpathlaw2.htm#trespass). As with horse-riding (see Q10http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/britain/footpathlaw/footpathlaw.htm#horses), use of any right of way by cyclists can be controlled by traffic regulation orders and byelaws imposed by local authorities. Infringement of byelaws or orders is a criminal offence. Under the Highways Act 1835, it is an offence to ride a bicycle on the pavement at the side of a road, and under the Fixed Penalty Offences Order 1999 a person who rides on a pavement can be fined on the spot by a police officer. Jason jamicu http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Morten Kjeldgaardm...@bioxray.au.dk wrote: I think it is time to separate tagging of traffic laws into a separate namespace from purely geographical map features. The information is useful, but the current concept of OSM tagging is not designed to deal with it in a systematic manner. Can you expand on separate namespace? Without a full new proposal, the current concept of OSM tagging is all we have to work with right now, and the issue is choosing appropriate tags and tagging schemes. Which do you think more appropriately separates legal issues from geographical map features, the highway=path or highway=footway/cycleway scheme? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! This discussion seems to be going the same way as it always does - in circles. :-) So I'd like to try again for a more general statement and summary. The need for change First of all, we would need to agree that there actually is a problem and that we need to (re)define something to clarify it. There have again been many mails along the line It is easy and can all be done following existing definitions - if it is done my way. But this is simply not true, the wiki _is_ contradicting itself. The Fuzziness If I summarize all different, contradicitory positions mentioned, what is the meaning if we see footway or cycleway today if we don't know who has tagged it according to which interpretation? highway=cycleway : road-signed or waymarked or suitable/allowed for bicycles or intended for bicycles or intended for mixed use with primary use bicycle bicycle=designated : the same as highway=cycleway by wiki definition highway=footway : road-signed or waymarked or suitable/allowed for pedestrians or intended for pedestrians or intended for mixed use with primary use pedestrians foot=designated : the same as highway=footway by wiki definition In theory, bridleway has the same problems, but it seems that so far nobody has cared about bridleways and so there are not as many contradicting interpretations attached. Conclusion If you don't really care about foot/cycleways or if you are in a country where the rules of traffic generally allow mixed use, this is ok. If you want to tag the strict use cases of legal dedication in Germany or France, this is insufficient. The basic problem is also apparent: A good definition should be unambigous and not include the word or. :-) Solution attempts Finally, I cannot resist the temptation anymore and have to present the two possible solutions I have arrived at. Both are minimum impact solutions and only take into account the currently known use cases. Proposal #1: Unjoin designated Get rid of the idea that cycleway is the same thing as bicycle=designated. Accept that foot/cycleway is fuzzy. Redefine designated to be only used for legally dedicated ways. Likewise seperate foot=designated from footway. This way, foot/cycleway can be used for the lenient use cases like today, but designated can be used to tag the strict use cases. Proposal #2: Introduce offical dedication Leave old tags as they are and accept that foot/cycleway and designated are as fuzzy as described above. Clarify that these tags only give information on possible use, but not about the legal situation. Introduce a new tag biclyce/foot=official to tag the strict use case of road-signed ways or corresponding legal dedication. This way, nothing needs to be changed in existing fuzzy tagging, but real foot/cycleways are simply tagged by adding an official or changing designated to official if appropriate. And again: I believe that these two ways would work as a solution and that they would cause little impact. But I will be happy with any complete and workable solution. In any way we would still have to come to an agreement and implement it the same way in renderers and editors - which seem near impossible. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Nopekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: The need for change First of all, we would need to agree that there actually is a problem and that we need to (re)define something to clarify it. There have again been many mails along the line It is easy and can all be done following existing definitions - if it is done my way. But this is simply not true, the wiki _is_ contradicting itself. No, there is no problem if you accept that some values are implied by default for the whole world (e.g. foot=no for highway=motorway) and some need a default value by country/region which can be documented on the wiki (highway=cycleway + foot=yes/no). Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Roy wrote Which do you think more appropriately separates legal issues from geographical map features, the highway=path or highway=footway/cycleway scheme? I would say 'neither' - use the designated tag for the legal designation and something else (I dare not say what!) for the geographical feature! Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com] Sent: 13 August 2009 09:21 To: Morten Kjeldgaard Cc: Talk Openstreetmap Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Morten Kjeldgaardm...@bioxray.au.dk wrote: I think it is time to separate tagging of traffic laws into a separate namespace from purely geographical map features. The information is useful, but the current concept of OSM tagging is not designed to deal with it in a systematic manner. Can you expand on separate namespace? Without a full new proposal, the current concept of OSM tagging is all we have to work with right now, and the issue is choosing appropriate tags and tagging schemes. Which do you think more appropriately separates legal issues from geographical map features, the highway=path or highway=footway/cycleway scheme? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
... and in England you are forbidden to cycle on all designated footways unless explicitly allowed! It neatly makes the point about regional differences. Mike Harris _ From: Gustav Foseid [mailto:gust...@gmail.com] Sent: 12 August 2009 19:04 To: Talk Openstreetmap Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: highway=footway (not suitable) bicycle=yes (but allowed) bicycle=dedicated (signed) A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me. In Norway you are allowed to cycle on all footways, unless explicitly forbidden. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Useful summary (wish I had seen it before I just posted mine!) ... I agree - mostly - with unjoining designated in solution 1 ... I am less happy with introducing =official as we already seem to have made some recent progress in Ekkehart's direction with the use of designated. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Nop [mailto:ekkeh...@gmx.de] Sent: 13 August 2009 10:02 To: talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway Hi! This discussion seems to be going the same way as it always does - in circles. :-) So I'd like to try again for a more general statement and summary. The need for change First of all, we would need to agree that there actually is a problem and that we need to (re)define something to clarify it. There have again been many mails along the line It is easy and can all be done following existing definitions - if it is done my way. But this is simply not true, the wiki _is_ contradicting itself. The Fuzziness If I summarize all different, contradicitory positions mentioned, what is the meaning if we see footway or cycleway today if we don't know who has tagged it according to which interpretation? highway=cycleway : road-signed or waymarked or suitable/allowed for bicycles or intended for bicycles or intended for mixed use with primary use bicycle bicycle=designated : the same as highway=cycleway by wiki definition highway=footway : road-signed or waymarked or suitable/allowed for pedestrians or intended for pedestrians or intended for mixed use with primary use pedestrians foot=designated : the same as highway=footway by wiki definition In theory, bridleway has the same problems, but it seems that so far nobody has cared about bridleways and so there are not as many contradicting interpretations attached. Conclusion If you don't really care about foot/cycleways or if you are in a country where the rules of traffic generally allow mixed use, this is ok. If you want to tag the strict use cases of legal dedication in Germany or France, this is insufficient. The basic problem is also apparent: A good definition should be unambigous and not include the word or. :-) Solution attempts Finally, I cannot resist the temptation anymore and have to present the two possible solutions I have arrived at. Both are minimum impact solutions and only take into account the currently known use cases. Proposal #1: Unjoin designated Get rid of the idea that cycleway is the same thing as bicycle=designated. Accept that foot/cycleway is fuzzy. Redefine designated to be only used for legally dedicated ways. Likewise seperate foot=designated from footway. This way, foot/cycleway can be used for the lenient use cases like today, but designated can be used to tag the strict use cases. Proposal #2: Introduce offical dedication Leave old tags as they are and accept that foot/cycleway and designated are as fuzzy as described above. Clarify that these tags only give information on possible use, but not about the legal situation. Introduce a new tag biclyce/foot=official to tag the strict use case of road-signed ways or corresponding legal dedication. This way, nothing needs to be changed in existing fuzzy tagging, but real foot/cycleways are simply tagged by adding an official or changing designated to official if appropriate. And again: I believe that these two ways would work as a solution and that they would cause little impact. But I will be happy with any complete and workable solution. In any way we would still have to come to an agreement and implement it the same way in renderers and editors - which seem near impossible. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 12/08/2009, at 10:38 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: But if there is no default for foot, then what is routing software to do? If it uses the way, the default is yes, and if doesn't, it's no. So the notion of no default does not make at lot of sense to me. ... With highway=path, the wiki page does not give the semantics when there are no tags. For highway=path and no tags, is that horse=yes or horse=no? Is it paved or not if there is no tag? What I'm trying to say is that not having the tag would mean currently unknown rather than depends on local defaults, and so someone should find out and add the missing tag. The same way that not having a maxspeed tag indicated that we don't know what the maximum speed limit is, rather than there not being a limit. Obviously software processing the data will need to pick a default, but while editing it would mean that someone should improve the tags. The biggest problem is that there needs to be an unambiguous mapping From these highway=foo tags to the implied value of the access subtags. The next biggest is non-operational semi-circular definitions like 'highway=cycleway' being for 'designated cycleways' which talk about 'intent', although in practice one would ask (in en_US) do most people think this is a bike path. I think it's mostly around the use of the word designated. Some people (including me) take that to mean there is a sign, or other signal present saying that it's for bicycles, but other people obviously disagree. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Pieren wrote: No, there is no problem if you accept that some values are implied by default for the whole world (e.g. foot=no for highway=motorway) and some need a default value by country/region which can be documented on the wiki (highway=cycleway + foot=yes/no). Pieren pieren, please there is still a problem you are merely offering a different solution ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
2009/8/13 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de: Proposal #2: Introduce offical dedication Leave old tags as they are and accept that foot/cycleway and designated are as fuzzy as described above. Clarify that these tags only give information on possible use, but not about the legal situation. Introduce a new tag biclyce/foot=official to tag the strict use case of road-signed ways or corresponding legal dedication. This way, nothing needs to be changed in existing fuzzy tagging, but real foot/cycleways are simply tagged by adding an official or changing designated to official if appropriate. IMHO if this solution is chosen we should also deprecate designated, as it is of no more use, and would just lead to possible problems when contradictory to official. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
I'm afraid I have just been completely overwhelmed by this thread and the other similar ones over the last couple of weeks while trying to have a life too. I am also conscious that it is a discussion that reignites in different guises every few months. I apologise if I'm repeating what's already been said. How do you know what is legal vs conventional? Except if you are in a privileged position, it can only be from evidence on the ground, in which case what would you do different in most cases? Would you mark something as a cycleway where cycling (or whatever) is happening but not legal (as evidenced by the signage and knowledge of the relevant rules)? Or not for cycles when the evidence shows that it is intended so? I think this legal stuff is a red herring (English idiom: a distraction) except in certain special cases. My feeling is that what we are missing is largely country-specific defaults. Or rather we have failed to recognise this in the documentation, but it is what pretty much everyone is doing in practice already, and that's got a lot going for it. What most people are doing now and will likely continue to do is seeing something on the ground which says I am a cycleway by whatever system or evidence is relevant to their location, knowledge of local laws and rules of the road etc, and therefore tagging it highway=cycleway. The same applies to motorway, footway etc. What a user of the map understands is the same thing, because they know that cycleways or footways can or cannot be used by pedestrians or cyclists respectively, or that motorways can or cannot be used by farm vehicles, or whatever in that particular country. When we have exceptions, again the common practice is for people to indicate them. Hence a weight limit or a time restriction. So my feeling is we should document what collection of users a particular highway tag applies to by default IN EACH COUNTRY (including things like under 12 or not on a Sunday if that's the normal situation). Then tags and renderings mean what ordinary people (users and mappers) expect them to mean. If a particular footway is specifically open to cyclists, for example a permissive path that someone quoted, then if the local rules are that pedestrians can use cycleways, it makes no functional difference whether it is marked as a footway where cycling is permitted (by whatever tagging convention) or as a cycleway. You might choose to do one or the other based on a subjective judgement about the principal use, so it might affect how it is drawn but should not affect routers looking for both bicycle=yes exceptions and highway=x where x has defaults for that location which include bicycles. I don't see that deviations from the normal rules for types of transport are different in concept from other exceptions like weight or time limits. -- So I say: keep it simple, keep it compatible. Carry on with the simple, established tags we already have, but just clarify the default use classes which apply to each highway tag, PER COUNTRY, and tag exceptions to these according to evidence on the ground. Add specific legal designations only where expert knowledge is available and different from the default interpretation. --- I think the same principle applies to speed limits (motorway 70mph, trunk 60mph in UK, unlimited and whatever km/h in Germany etc), weight limits and so on. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
I think the underlying problem with path is that it creates overlapping definitions. Among data users there is a strong preference for tag combinations to be hierarchical, and I think that preference is reasonable. While having to deal with doctor and doctors is only a mild pain, trying to deal with multiple overlapping fuzzy definitions for commonly-used tags is enough to make your head spin. So - path should either pitch itself to cover everything (ie footway should be a subset of path), or to cover a clear niche (ie path should be independent or a subset of footway). The deprecation of footway/cycleway was voted on (by not many people, but nevertheless), and the deprecation was rejected, but some people don't seem to be able to take no for an answer. You can use the same analysis for footway/cycleway. Either one is a subset of the other, or they should be clearly independent. The wiki tries to make them independent (mainly or exclusively), but they aren't in many countries, hence the confusion. I think treating cycleway as a subset of footway is a more robust model, allowing the grey area between the two to be described more accurately, rather than trying to pretend it doesn't exist. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 13/08/2009, at 10.20, Roy Wallace wrote: On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Morten Kjeldgaardm...@bioxray.au.dk wrote: I think it is time to separate tagging of traffic laws into a separate namespace from purely geographical map features. The information is useful, but the current concept of OSM tagging is not designed to deal with it in a systematic manner. Can you expand on separate namespace? Without a full new proposal, the current concept of OSM tagging is all we have to work with right now, and the issue is choosing appropriate tags and tagging schemes. Which do you think more appropriately separates legal issues from geographical map features, the highway=path or highway=footway/cycleway scheme? Sure. By namespace I mean something like the Karlsruhe meeting introduced with the addr:* family of tags. In this example, addr would be the namespace. My experience with OSM is too short (I'm a newbie :-)) to actually come up with a proposal on how to separate out the judicial circumstances from the map features; I suppose a tag family called law:* would be appropriate on highways to specify trafic rules (including whether you can travel by foot on a cycleway). Following the thought of namespaces, the classical geographical features might be transitioned to a geo:* namespace. Cheers, ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
David Earl wrote: So I say: keep it simple, keep it compatible. Carry on with the simple, established tags we already have, but just clarify the default use classes which apply to each highway tag, PER COUNTRY, and tag exceptions to these according to evidence on the ground. Add specific legal designations only where expert knowledge is available and different from the default interpretation. I say: forget all defaults and store all those values in the database. Those only partly documented defaults are the cause of the discussed problems. The process of tagging may be as simple as it is now. Let the user choose which country he is in (or which country's rules are in his head while editing) and than the editor can add those defaults. What we win with this method is, that the apps working with the data need not know anything about country borders or specific legals and changing some default in the WIKI will no longer invalidate data. Norbert ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Richard Mannrichard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: The deprecation of footway/cycleway was voted on (by not many people, but nevertheless), and the deprecation was rejected, but some people don't seem to be able to take no for an answer. It was? Maybe that was before my time. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:33 PM, David Earlda...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: So my feeling is we should document what collection of users a particular highway tag applies to by default IN EACH COUNTRY (including things like under 12 or not on a Sunday if that's the normal situation). Then tags and renderings mean what ordinary people (users and mappers) expect them to mean. Tags and renderings mean what ordinary people expect them to mean - the data must be able to be understood by a computer, not just by a person. Are you saying this will be made possible only via reading the defaults in each country via the wiki? Don't like this - that's not what the wiki is for - the data should be self-describing. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Norbert Hoffmannnhoffm...@spamfence.net wrote: I say: forget all defaults and store all those values in the database. Those only partly documented defaults are the cause of the discussed problems. +1. Everyone seems to agree that the current use of cycleway/footway implies various things in various circumstances (defaults is an overly nice way of putting it), and these implications need to be made explicit. Should they be documented per country on the wiki, or embedded in the data? In the data, of course! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
2009/8/13 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com: How do you know what is legal vs conventional? Except if you are in a privileged position, it can only be from evidence on the ground, in which case what would you do different in most cases? I don't think it requires a privileged position in a democratic country to get this kind of information, but it might be easier and faster if you are in it. You could check your local town council announcements (they are a usable source, as the have law-like nature and are therefore not protected by copyright) or similar stuff that deals with this topic. Would you mark something as a cycleway where cycling (or whatever) is happening but not legal (as evidenced by the signage and knowledge of the relevant rules)? no, but I'm actually tagging it as bicycle=yes because it is tolerated (and there is no fine). Or not for cycles when the evidence shows that it is intended so? I think this legal stuff is a red herring (English idiom: a distraction) except in certain special cases. My feeling is that what we are missing is largely country-specific defaults. Or rather we have failed to recognise this in the documentation, but it is what pretty much everyone is doing in practice already, and that's got a lot going for it. yes, it simply is not documented (yet). When we have exceptions, again the common practice is for people to indicate them. Hence a weight limit or a time restriction. +1 So my feeling is we should document what collection of users a particular highway tag applies to by default IN EACH COUNTRY (including things like under 12 or not on a Sunday if that's the normal situation). Then tags and renderings mean what ordinary people (users and mappers) expect them to mean. +1 If a particular footway is specifically open to cyclists, for example a permissive path that someone quoted, then if the local rules are that pedestrians can use cycleways, it makes no functional difference whether it is marked as a footway where cycling is permitted (by whatever tagging convention) or as a cycleway. you're wrong. It makes a difference on how the cyclist can go (implicit maxspeed) and it makes a difference for the pedestrian who can not legally use a cycleway. So I say: keep it simple, keep it compatible. Carry on with the simple, established tags we already have, but just clarify the default use classes which apply to each highway tag, PER COUNTRY, and tag exceptions to these according to evidence on the ground. +1 Add specific legal designations only where expert knowledge is available and different from the default interpretation. why? It doesn't harm and serves in cases of ambiguity. I think the same principle applies to speed limits (motorway 70mph, trunk 60mph in UK, unlimited and whatever km/h in Germany etc), weight limits and so on. actually we put maxspeed on all highways in Rome from unclassified upwards, even when it is just implicit, and invented a tag to indicate that the maxspeed is not explicit. We add a key maxspeed=50 and maxspeedtype=ITA:city In the unlikely case that the general maxspeed in Italian towns is changed, we can change those maxspeeds that are implicit ones automatically. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Nopekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: First of all, we would need to agree that there actually is a problem and that we need to (re)define something to clarify it. There have again been many mails along the line It is easy and can all be done following existing definitions - if it is done my way. But this is simply not true, the wiki _is_ contradicting itself. +1 Proposal #1: Unjoin designated Get rid of the idea that cycleway is the same thing as bicycle=designated. Accept that foot/cycleway is fuzzy. Redefine designated to be only used for legally dedicated ways. Likewise seperate foot=designated from footway. If footway/cycleway is fuzzy in terms of current usage (and I believe it is), then +1. But I would personally prefer that designated mean signed. This stays true to mapping what is on the ground, and separates legal issues from geographical/physical features, as others have suggested. I think this is in line with the current usage of designated (correct me if I'm wrong). For example, in Australia you may be legally allowed to ride a bicycle on a footpath, but I don't think anyone would ever tag such a footpath as bicycle=designated. You can often legally ride a bike on an Australian road, but again, I would never tag such a road with bicycle=designated. This way, foot/cycleway can be used for the lenient use cases like today, but designated can be used to tag the strict use cases. I'd recommend highway=path with *=yes for the lenient use cases (which would make footway/cycleway redundant). But I've been told that highway=path has already been voted against in the past :( Proposal #2: Introduce offical dedication Leave old tags as they are and accept that foot/cycleway and designated are as fuzzy as described above. Clarify that these tags only give information on possible use, but not about the legal situation. Introduce a new tag biclyce/foot=official to tag the strict use case of road-signed ways or corresponding legal dedication. I don't really see the advantage of having a fuzzy definition of designated. I would recommend using yes to indicate a fuzzy recommendation or suitability. And if you don't think suitability should be tagged, you could feel free to ignore the *=yes tags. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! Roy Wallace schrieb: If footway/cycleway is fuzzy in terms of current usage (and I believe it is), then +1. But I would personally prefer that designated mean signed. This stays true to mapping what is on the ground, and separates legal issues from geographical/physical features, as others have suggested. I think this is in line with the current usage of designated (correct me if I'm wrong). For example, in Australia you may be legally allowed to ride a bicycle on a footpath, but I don't think anyone would ever tag such a footpath as bicycle=designated. You can often legally ride a bike on an Australian road, but again, I would never tag such a road with bicycle=designated. Clarification: What I meant is: Designated only for ways legally dedicated to one mode of travel. Usually that means individually road-signed, but it could also be done for a whole area like a nature reserve with a declaration for all ways inside. You could also say: Designated means designated by the government. But in this approach, ways that are just waymarked as a route are _not_ designated. A cycle route often runs on a tertiary highway, but that doesn't make the highway a designated cycleway. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Nopekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: Clarification: What I meant is: Designated only for ways legally dedicated to one mode of travel. Usually that means individually road-signed, but it could also be done for a whole area like a nature reserve with a declaration for all ways inside. You could also say: Designated means designated by the government. I would prefer that designated does not infer exclusively designated, so that it's possible to have bicycle=designated as well as foot=designated on a shared pathway (signed with a picture of a person and a picture of a bicycle). Designated != Dedicated ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
--- On Wed, 12/8/09, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: There is no consent on which way to go to express the strict use case. Does there need to be? Not that this implies that I agree or disagree but strictly from a technical point of view all you have to do is create/get an extract of a bounding area, not bounding box, covering Germany, you would probably need to clip exactly on the boundary, and then you write a bot to update all the highway=cycleway to be highway=path,bicycle=designated,foot=no ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 12/08/2009, at 3:51 PM, Nop wrote: There is no consent on which way to go to express the strict use case. I think the only two solutions are to either have this be country- specific (at which point routers/renderers have to start knowing these kinds of things), or we have highway=cycleway not imply any value for foot at all. Going the other way and not having highway=footway imply any value for bicycle would mean that people like me could tag something as a footway and say that I don't know whether it's suitable for cycling on by leaving the bicycle= out. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
--- On Wed, 12/8/09, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote: Going the other way and not having highway=footway imply any value for bicycle would mean that people like me could tag something as a footway and say that I don't know whether it's suitable for cycling on by leaving the bicycle= out. It's most likely going to have to be jurisdiction specific, not just country specific in some instances. Going the other way and dealing with footway for example, NSW Vic doesn't allow cyclists on footpaths, but ACT does. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: In the strict (German) use case, you need to distinguish between bicycle=allowed/suitable and bicycle=road sign. This is not about marking a default, this is about describing the real situation precise enough to make deductions about access rights for _other_ traffic. highway=cycleway (allowed and suitable) bicycle=dedicated (road sign) bicycle=yes = (not road sign) foot=yes/no (to make the situation clearer) highway=footway (not suitable) bicycle=yes (but allowed) bicycle=dedicated (signed) Or am I missing something? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 12 Aug 2009, at 07:02, John Smith wrote: --- On Wed, 12/8/09, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: There is no consent on which way to go to express the strict use case. Does there need to be? Not that this implies that I agree or disagree but strictly from a technical point of view all you have to do is create/get an extract of a bounding area, not bounding box, covering Germany, you would probably need to clip exactly on the boundary, and then you write a bot to update all the highway=cycleway to be highway=path,bicycle=designated,foot=no No. You should use highway=cycleway;bicycle=no if you have a cycle path that you cannot walk on. Routing software already supports this. They don't support routing cyclists over the highway=path. Are you really trying to force cyclists on to major roads? Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Nop wrote: This is a rather lenient definition that is unsuitable to depict the German use case. That is exactly the reason for the confusion we are having. If something is tagged as a cycleway and I am planning to walk on foot, I need to know whether it is an unsigned way assumed to be suitable for cycling (then I may use it as a pedestrian) or whether it is legally dedicated to cycling (then I must not use it as a pedestrian). The last time I was in Germany most of the signed-for-cycling ways were of the combined cycle and footway type. We have both types of signs here too, (combined use vs. cycles only 100 to 1 I'd say, or even more), but I haven't yet seen a only-for-cyclists way that didn't have a footway somewhere really near (within 10 meters) - which kind of makes it irrelevant for a pedestrian looking at a map - there's then just one way he may use, not the cycleway he chose from the map; software knows which one can be used no matter cycleway or footway, when they're tagged with correct foot/bicycle=designated/yes/no. But that's a rendering issue anyway - either add something to the rendering to show the both allowed or the cycleway + foot=no as something different from those where foot=yes or foot=designated. designated in a dictionary it means marked with a sign and it is the only/most fitting tag for the purpose anyway, so in Germany bicycle=designated must mean foot=no, so it cannot be the same as Why not always add the foot=no when it's the only for cycles sign - and foot=designated when it's combined use? When not tagged it's just incomplete data: foot=unknown - someone will add it sooner or later. -- Alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Roy Wallace wrote: I have no idea what you would consider suitable for the common cyclist. Please, at least write the criteria down. Since it's the not signposted ways that are not evident and a common cyclist is not looking for mountain bike trails, I'll try: shout if you disagree. Absolute requirements: * cycling is legal (e.g. some parts of Germany require a width of over 2 meters, or so I've read) * way is not infested with roots or other sharp objects - things you could cross at walking pace only * surface is not mud, loose/fine sand or other where the tires sink enough to slow down the cyclist. * way is wide enough for two cyclists to pass - generally at least about 1.5 meters wide, but 1.2 might just suffice * a cyclist can use it to get ''somewhere'' - at least one of the ways connected to it must be something else than steps or footway, but dead ends may exists if it's the way to a house or an amenity or attraction And fullfills most or all of the following: * way has at some point been built for traffic * way is wide enough for three cyclists to pass (one in each direction and one overtaking) - over two meters * visibility obstructions don't limit the safe speed below 20 km/h in corners (the max most cyclist can keep going for longer times) Additionally: we've instructed the Finnish mappers to consider the other ways suitable for cycling nearby - if there's a better/faster/wider/ flatter way in the same direction nearby, the smaller is better of as a footway + bicycle=yes _when there's doubt_ and no signs. This has lead to consistent results. As to the example of your mother, I fully acknowledge that not all mothers are alike but stereotypes are usable if they're consistent, I should have it made more clear that I was referring to a person not driving a mountain or trekking bike and with no intention of physical exercise; let's make that your grandmother on a gearless city bike hauling the groceries; she might have just bought a basket of eggs. -- Alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
John Smith schrieb: --- On Wed, 12/8/09, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: There is no consent on which way to go to express the strict use case. Does there need to be? YES!!! Not that this implies that I agree or disagree but strictly from a technical point of view all you have to do is create/get an extract of a bounding area, not bounding box, covering Germany, you would probably need to clip exactly on the boundary, and then you write a bot to update all the highway=cycleway to be highway=path,bicycle=designated,foot=no Which does not help you at all as you don't know which cycleways actually have a road sign and which just look suitable for cycling. And you have to achieve a consent first whether designated actually means has a road sign or just mainly for cycling just like cycleway. It's not that easy. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! James Livingston schrieb: On 12/08/2009, at 3:51 PM, Nop wrote: There is no consent on which way to go to express the strict use case. I think the only two solutions are to either have this be country- specific (at which point routers/renderers have to start knowing these kinds of things), or we have highway=cycleway not imply any value for foot at all. Yes. Or we keep cycleway, but don't use it for road-signed cycling ways where it does not apply correctly. (e.g. in Germany) bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! Gustav Foseid schrieb: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de mailto:ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: In the strict (German) use case, you need to distinguish between bicycle=allowed/suitable and bicycle=road sign. This is not about marking a default, this is about describing the real situation precise enough to make deductions about access rights for _other_ traffic. This is one possible way to go, but you are using assumptions which are diputed/interpreted differently. highway=cycleway (allowed and suitable) bicycle=dedicated (road sign) Some people hold that designated is the same as cycleway, so it cannot describe a road sign. You could use bicycle=official instead, wich is rather new and not yet generally established. bicycle=yes = (not road sign) foot=yes/no (to make the situation clearer) If you go for explicit tagging of all access rights you would at least have to also add horse=no highway=footway (not suitable) bicycle=yes (but allowed) bicycle=dedicated (signed) A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me. Well basically your approach is a variant of the path+acess tags. You just leave cycleway alone and use it like path, expressing all the important information in access tags. This is a possible way to go if we can achieve consent on it, especially on the new tag offical which is required to express the legal road-signed status. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Nop ekkehart at gmx.de writes: But the opposing argument works just the other way: If I look up designated in a dictionary it means marked with a sign and it is the only/most fitting tag for the purpose anyway, so in Germany bicycle=designated must mean foot=no, so it cannot be the same as highway=cycleway which means foot=yes. Or if it is the same, cycleway must mean foot=no. When cycling I am not interested in knowing what traffic sign some way has been marked with. It is usually enough to know if it is bicycle=yes or bicycle=no. Can't we just recommend to always use 'foot' and 'bicycle' tags? Designation etc. could be extra attributes. That would also make database queries much more simple and reliable. Ways meant for cycling could be selected as SELECT paths WHERE bicycle=yes. Selecting WHERE bicycle=yes AND foot=no would give cycleways with less tourists standing and taking photographs. So basic tag set could be highway=path topped up with boolean foot=yes/no and bicycle=yes/no. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
--- On Wed, 12/8/09, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: Well basically your approach is a variant of the path+acess tags. You just leave cycleway alone and use it like path, expressing all the important information in access tags. This is a possible way to go if we can achieve consent on it, especially on the new tag offical which is required to express the legal road-signed status. No it's not, use bicycle=designated like someone else suggested for indicating explicitly what is on a sign, bicycle=yes if it's suitable/allowed etc. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Shaun McDonald wrote: ... Are you really trying to force cyclists on to major roads? As a pedestrian, I can see advantages with this... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
2009/8/12 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: --- On Wed, 12/8/09, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: Well basically your approach is a variant of the path+acess tags. You just leave cycleway alone and use it like path, expressing all the important information in access tags. This is a possible way to go if we can achieve consent on it, especially on the new tag offical which is required to express the legal road-signed status. No it's not, use bicycle=designated like someone else suggested for indicating explicitly what is on a sign, bicycle=yes if it's suitable/allowed etc. In my opinion, suitability is a whole new topic that should'nt be represented by *mode_of_transport*=yes/no, as it's highly subjective. yes/no should solely describe the legal status. -Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote: No. You should use highway=cycleway;bicycle=no if you have a cycle path that you cannot walk on. Routing software already supports this. They don't support routing cyclists over the highway=path. Are you really trying to force cyclists on to major roads? Shaun is what you typed actually what you meant? highway=cycleway;pedestrian=no ??? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:51, Liz wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote: No. You should use highway=cycleway;bicycle=no if you have a cycle path that you cannot walk on. Routing software already supports this. They don't support routing cyclists over the highway=path. Are you really trying to force cyclists on to major roads? Shaun is what you typed actually what you meant? highway=cycleway;pedestrian=no ??? Doh, not quite. I meant highway=cycleway;foot=no. At least I know someone is paying attention ;-) Shaun smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:55 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 12/8/09, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: Well basically your approach is a variant of the path+acess tags. You just leave cycleway alone and use it like path, expressing all the important information in access tags. This is a possible way to go if we can achieve consent on it, especially on the new tag offical which is required to express the legal road-signed status. No it's not, use bicycle=designated like someone else suggested for indicating explicitly what is on a sign, bicycle=yes if it's suitable/allowed etc. It seems that the word designated has different interpretations and that's a point to clarify on the wiki. For me, designated means with road sign. Note that in France, pedestrians are not allowed on cycleways. I don't see why we should add foot=no now in all cycleways in France. I read somewhere that some motorways in US gives access to bicycles. Does it mean that we have to add bicycle=no to all other motorways in the world ? As said, when the way is designated for one mode of transport, then it is easy to define a rule that everybody understand: - only one road sign designated for bicycle : use highway=cycleway - only one road sign designated for pedestrian : use highway=footway For all other cases, use highway=path Is that so complicated ? When the cycleway gives access to pedestrians by local laws but it's not expressed by a road sign, then add you country/county/region/whatever in the list of implied values here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions For the German case, where the road sign is for both (bicycle and foot) : use highway=path + bicycle=designated + foot=designated as it is already suggested in the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath/Examples) (and remove the highway=cycleway+foot=designated alternative because this is exactly such things that create so much confusion). Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
This is a rather lenient definition that is unsuitable to depict the German use case. That is exactly the reason for the confusion we are having. If something is tagged as a cycleway and I am planning to walk on foot, I need to know whether it is an unsigned way assumed to be suitable for cycling (then I may use it as a pedestrian) or whether it is legally dedicated to cycling (then I must not use it as a pedestrian) For the unsigned way assumed to be suitable for cycling, but with no definite legal right, I would use bicycle=permissive. In other words the assumption is that the owner of the path/land does not mind cyclists using it. Then, if it turns out that they do mind, we can change it to bicycle=no. I would apply a similar approach to paths too. I have no idea of exactly what the German law is on this, but when I was in the Schwarzwald last month, the paths/tracks in the forest were either waymarked by yellow/red/blue diamonds, or not waymarked at all (apart from the occasional Betreten verboten). I have not got round to marking these up yet, but my intention (German users, please feel free to tell me otherwise!) would be to tag the waymarked paths as highway=path|track; foot=designated and the unwaymarked tracks as highway=track; foot=permissive if I saw evidence of use e.g. someone walking along one, or simply highway=track if I literally didn't know whether the track was OK to use or not. (I would do the same in the uk) Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
DavidD wrote: Mapping is enough work as it is without having to frequently check proposals in the wiki. A proposal should be be announced on the mailing lists, so you don't need to check the wiki. That doesn't help people who don't read the mailing lists, but the lack of a central communcaition channel is a problem of its own. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
In my opinion, suitability is a whole new topic that should'nt be represented by *mode_of_transport*=yes/no, as it's highly subjective. yes/no should solely describe the legal status. Agreed. One can use the surface tag to do this together with SAC_scale etc (with which I'm not 100% familiar but do understand the general purpose of) So bicycle=designated; surface=rock; highway=path for some of the bridleways you get in upland areas would indicate that bikes have a legal right to use it, but might not want to. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! Nick Whitelegg schrieb: I have not got round to marking these up yet, but my intention (German users, please feel free to tell me otherwise!) would be to tag the waymarked paths as highway=path|track; foot=designated and the unwaymarked tracks as highway=track; foot=permissive Waymarking has no legal impact whatsoever. Those ways are foot=yes/permnissive, bicycle=yes/permissive, horse=yes/permissive. If you use designated for the waymarked ways without legal impact, then you need yet another tag (e.g. official) for the real cycleways with roadsigns and legal impact. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 12/08/2009, at 8:14 PM, Pieren wrote: Note that in France, pedestrians are not allowed on cycleways. I don't see why we should add foot=no now in all cycleways in France. I read somewhere that some motorways in US gives access to bicycles. Does it mean that we have to add bicycle=no to all other motorways in the world ? Either you have to do this, or software (in this case for routing) needs to know about all the quirks of different jurisdictions, which is a point I tried to make in the Australian-residential-tagging thread. In practice you probably wouldn't do it in the routing software itself, but when transforming the data from OSM format to whatever the router uses. Having tags whose implications change from region to region is asking to confuse people. Back when I lived in the ACT (Australia), I wouldn't expect to be required to tag things differently if I'm a few kilometres away from home, across the border in NSW. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com writes: --- On Wed, 12/8/09, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote: Going the other way and not having highway=footway imply any value for bicycle would mean that people like me could tag something as a footway and say that I don't know whether it's suitable for cycling on by leaving the bicycle= out. It's most likely going to have to be jurisdiction specific, not just country specific in some instances. Going the other way and dealing with footway for example, NSW Vic doesn't allow cyclists on footpaths, but ACT does. This is a major philosophical issue for OSM. I think it would be really nice if there were a consistent scheme so that one could interpret what was reasonable/allowed from tags alone without needing to know which way local defaults to. To some extent we are relying on similar traffic laws in enough countries to declare a default, and to expect places where those defaults are not true to tag as exceptions. In the case of cycleway, the global norm seems to be that pedestrians are permitted. But we have to do either define a default for each jurisdiction AND encode the default in the map with polygons OR have some table for renderers) OR define a global default AND tag all ways with exceptions to the global default I also don't understand the comments about no default. If we said that highway=cycleway implied horse=no bicycle=yes foot=yes then one would add tags if the reality is different (bicycle=designated if there are signs or some legal designation, foot=no if pedestrians are not allowed). But if there is no default for foot, then what is routing software to do? If it uses the way, the default is yes, and if doesn't, it's no. So the notion of no default does not make at lot of sense to me. I still don't see how this bears on cycleway/footway vs path (except that I do see the point that we have a human problem where humans think they know what cycleway means but they are being fuzzy). With highway=path, the wiki page does not give the semantics when there are no tags. For highway=path and no tags, is that horse=yes or horse=no? Is it paved or not if there is no tag? The biggest problem is that there needs to be an unambiguous mapping From these highway=foo tags to the implied value of the access subtags. The next biggest is non-operational semi-circular definitions like 'highway=cycleway' being for 'designated cycleways' which talk about 'intent', although in practice one would ask (in en_US) do most people think this is a bike path. Maybe we'll end up with a definition of bridleway, cycleway and footway in terms of path, with the notion that cycleway and footway are paved, and path is unpaved if not otherwise tagged. pgpAQDvojg0iI.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
[waymarked paths in Schwarzwald, Germany] If you use designated for the waymarked ways without legal impact, then you need yet another tag (e.g. official) for the real cycleways with roadsigns and legal impact. Thanks! In that case I'll just use permissive. Are there any Germany-specific tags for waymarked ways, to distinguish them from non-waymarked ways? In the Garmisch area for example, there are again waymarked paths (shown on maps in red) as well as non-waymarked paths. Thanks, Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Greg Troxel wrote: John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com writes: It's most likely going to have to be jurisdiction specific, not just country specific in some instances. Going the other way and dealing with footway for example, NSW Vic doesn't allow cyclists on footpaths, but ACT does. This is a major philosophical issue for OSM. I think it would be really nice if there were a consistent scheme so that one could interpret what was reasonable/allowed from tags alone without needing to know which way local defaults to. To some extent we are relying on similar traffic laws in enough countries to declare a default, and to expect places where those defaults are not true to tag as exceptions. Except it's plainly impossible that someone is going to be able to make defaults for the entire world, and certainly no defaults that the entire world would be happy with. A large number of tags are already dependent on the country they're used in anyway. So trying to come up with global defaults doesn't make sense anymore, and will certainly make people in some countries unhappy if they suddenly have to add several tags to each way where those tags used to be implied, because suddenly global defaults were introduced. And global defaults immediately break down at step one: defining vehicle classes. Those are just different in each country, and simply can't be merged. The concern is also that: (a) traffic code changes over time, so what's allowed today maybe wouldn't next year, even though the signs would stay the same, so we have to map in a way that we don't have to retag all roads if it does change (or worse: revisit each road because we don't have a method to know what was on the road) (b) mappers don't exactly know the entire traffic code either so they wouldn't know of certain exceptions or rules, they can see the traffic signs though so it makes sense to have tags that somehow relate to those signs in an understandable way I'm not saying we have to use traffic_sign=C9:M2 or something, but a tag that more or less says what's on the sign (like motorcar=no when it's a prohibition sign with the icon of a car), even when it's not just motorcars that are prohibited there, but all motorized vehicles with more than two wheels, like motorcycles with a sidecar. In the case of cycleway, the global norm seems to be that pedestrians are permitted. But we have to do either define a default for each jurisdiction AND encode the default in the map with polygons OR have some table for renderers) OR define a global default AND tag all ways with exceptions to the global default It definitely has to be define a default for each jurisdiction AND have some table (a library or whatever) for programs that need to know the rules But making that table will certainly not be an easy task... And table may be a bad word here, it would probably have to be something rule based, with for example conditional tests on certain tags, as one tag won't be enough to know access rules of all vehicles. With highway=path, the wiki page does not give the semantics when there are no tags. For highway=path and no tags, is that horse=yes or horse=no? I can only say how it's for Belgium: on a highway=path these vehicles are allowed unless there are other tags: * foot * bicycle * horse * moped_A * moped_B (those last two are subclasses of moped) Is it paved or not if there is no tag? It's just unknown if there's no tag. Is a default really needed for surface? The biggest problem is that there needs to be an unambiguous mapping From these highway=foo tags to the implied value of the access subtags. The next biggest is non-operational semi-circular definitions like 'highway=cycleway' being for 'designated cycleways' which talk about 'intent', although in practice one would ask (in en_US) do most people think this is a bike path. Can't agree more. I've done some work towards it for Belgium here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Eimai/Belgian_Roads#Paths Note how cycleway/footway/bridleway are only used for paths with the round blue signs. Maybe we'll end up with a definition of bridleway, cycleway and footway in terms of path, with the notion that cycleway and footway are paved, and path is unpaved if not otherwise tagged. There's really no need to define cycle/foot/bridleway in terms of path. They can have their own special use. Many legislations will have their notion of a cycleway, footway or bridleway, and they'll have their implications in terms of access rules (not necessarily on the path only, but as well on the adjacent road for example), who has to give way to whom etc. So it makes sense to align those definitions with the usage in OSM. Greetings Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 08/12/2009 05:14 AM, Pieren wrote: see why we should add foot=no now in all cycleways in France. I read somewhere that some motorways in US gives access to bicycles. Does it mean that we have to add bicycle=no to all other motorways in the world ? No, that would make no sense because most motorway-equivalents around the world do not allow bicycles. We have to add bicycle=yes to the motorways that allow it. designated means with a sign in most cases; however I am sure there are some places in the world where it's only defined in the local law, without actually being signed. Hence the lack of it needs a sign in the wiki for access=designated. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
The highway=footway is IMHO an alias for the more complex highway=path foot=yes surface=paved etc. construction. I think aliases are perfectly legitimate constructs when dealing with very common situations, and furthermore, much easier for newbies to remember and deal with. Perhaps, but I feel it's the *editors* that should wrap the complexities of tagging with human language equivalents for each, perhaps localised to the user's own country. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
2009/8/12 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: as it is already suggested in the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath/Examples) (and btw: there is at least two tracks on the path-page as examples: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/0/07/Path-motorcarnohorseno.jpg http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/d/d8/Path-nomotortraffic.jpg It is not explicitly written on the page that paths have to be smaller than roads (=tracks), but I always though it would be somehow implied (as it was to replace footway which is smaller than a road as otherwise is pedestrian). also the definition at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Path states for access: open to all non-motorized vehicles, but emergency vehicles are allowed does this mean we have to explicitly exclude them for paths like this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/5/52/PathSnowmobile.jpg or this http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:06072009%28045%29.jpg so the routers don't send the ambulances that way if it's shorter? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: highway=footway (not suitable) bicycle=yes (but allowed) bicycle=dedicated (signed) A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me. In Norway you are allowed to cycle on all footways, unless explicitly forbidden. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
2009/8/12 Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: highway=footway (not suitable) bicycle=yes (but allowed) bicycle=dedicated (signed) A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me. why not? In Germany: sign footway + additional sign: Fahrräder frei In Norway you are allowed to cycle on all footways, unless explicitly forbidden. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Shaun McDonald schrieb: They don't support routing cyclists over the highway=path. Are you really trying to force cyclists on to major roads? Huh? Which ones would that be? mkgmap and OpenRouteService certainly do. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Nick Whitelegg schrieb: I would apply a similar approach to paths too. I have no idea of exactly what the German law is on this, but when I was in the Schwarzwald last month, the paths/tracks in the forest were either waymarked by yellow/red/blue diamonds, or not waymarked at all (apart from the occasional Betreten verboten). In Germany, you have a legal right to walk in open nature; the diamond waymarks are just for orientation. In most German states, cycling and horseback riding is also allowed on suitable ways. (In the Black Forest, cycling would require a way that is at least 2 meters wide.) Land owners can restrict that right only for a few specific reasons. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: highway=footway (not suitable) bicycle=dedicated (signed) A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me. why not? In Germany: sign footway + additional sign: Fahrräder frei That's yes, not designated. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
2009/8/13 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de: Hi! Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: highway=footway (not suitable) bicycle=dedicated (signed) A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me. why not? In Germany: sign footway + additional sign: Fahrräder frei That's yes, not designated. Your mixing things up, that's path, here it was footway. What do you mean by signed? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 08/12/2009 12:46 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: so the routers don't send the ambulances that way if it's shorter? That's meant to be interpreted as emergency=destination. As far as I know, emergency vehicles are pretty much allowed to go where they need to; this gets back to the idea of suitability, which people are keen to remove from the access=* tags. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 09:12:10AM +1000, Roy Wallace wrote: - Do we tag generic trails as highway=path or does this tag have a more complex meaning? I don't think there is any such thing as a generic trail. I think highway=path should simply imply that the way is a physical route used for travel but not suitable for cars. Additional tags seem to be necessary to describe details, if available. Then why don't we use just 'highway=road' for any physical route that is suitable for cars? With your reasoning highway=motorway, highway=trunk, highway=residental, etc. are unnecessary, as the properties can be described with other tags… But we have the another layer of abstraction and I think it proved useful. We could define motorway by its surface, width, number of lanes, vehicles which are allowed and which are not, but this does not make things simple and would make interpretation of the map very hard. Classifying ways into motorways/primary/secondary/residental makes things simpler. The same should be true for ways useful or dedicated for pedestrians and cyclists. IMHO path should be the same thing for foot/cycleways what a 'track' is for 4-wheel vehicles. Higher-level ways should be tagged as footway/cycleway/pedestrian. Greets, Jacek ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 11/08/09 01:57, Alex Mauer wrote: On 08/10/2009 05:31 PM, Liz wrote: I would consider that if we have thousands of mappers, that we should set a quorum for a vote so that unless at least x hundred people vote the vote is not valid From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features#Proposal_Status_Process: 8 unanimous approval votes or 15 total votes with a majority approval It seems to me that we have one. That's a completely ridiculous quorum when we have 1 active mappers. If the process says that eight people can get together and tell thousands of people that they've been doing it wrong for the last five years and should start retagging everything according to some new scheme then the process is broken. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi, For my mind this starts to be far too complicated for most of the mappers and users as well. Let's assume there is a smallish way/path/track or whatever it is called. Anyway, something that is not meant for car traffic. I would believe that majority of people would be satisfied if they just knew if they are allowed to walk or cycle along that way/track/path. This need could be satisfied with two toggle switches and four resulting combinations: walking=yes/cycling=yes, walking=yes/cycling=no, walking=no/cycling=yes, walking=no/cycling=no. This information would be enough for me at least when walking or cycling in a city. Other information that would be useful for more advanced and sophisticated use could be given with additional tags. I can imagine myself feeding information about paved/unpaved surface sometimes. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 11/08/09 08:50, Roy Wallace wrote: On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Tom Hughest...@compton.nu wrote: That's a completely ridiculous quorum when we have 1 active mappers. If the process says that eight people can get together and tell thousands of people that they've been doing it wrong for the last five years and should start retagging everything according to some new scheme then the process is broken. What would you suggest? It is quite possible that the effect of increasing the number of necessary votes will only result in slowing down progress. Do you instead expect that it would increase the quality of the accepted proposals? Or are you saying that new ways of tagging things are just bad in general?? Well the hurdle to jump to change an existing tagging should certainly be much higher than the hurdle to introduce a new tag for something that hasn't been tagged before. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:02:28 +0100, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 11/08/09 08:50, Roy Wallace wrote: What would you suggest? It is quite possible that the effect of increasing the number of necessary votes will only result in slowing down progress. Do you instead expect that it would increase the quality of the accepted proposals? Or are you saying that new ways of tagging things are just bad in general?? Well the hurdle to jump to change an existing tagging should certainly be much higher than the hurdle to introduce a new tag for something that hasn't been tagged before. Which is precisely why I made a simple proposal for a new process in these situations. It may not be the right process, but we have to admit that the case of highway=path - notwithstanding the merit of that proposal - shows the current process is quite broken. Regards, Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi, Tom Chance wrote: Well the hurdle to jump to change an existing tagging should certainly be much higher than the hurdle to introduce a new tag for something that hasn't been tagged before. Which is precisely why I made a simple proposal for a new process in these situations. But isn't what TomH writes above exactly what we have? If you introduce something new that was never tagged before, you simply tag it any way you think makes sense and it is *very* unlikely that you will run into criticism; a few months down the road, when someone else asks how this thing should be tagged, you could say that you've been using this and that for a while now and he can just do the same. On the other hand, if your desire is to change something that already exists and ask people to tag it differently from now on, or even worse if you want people to agree on a blanket automatic change of millions of existing objects, then you'll have a much harder time convincing people that this is required. All this without any formal quorum or vote. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:23:09 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Tom Chance wrote: Well the hurdle to jump to change an existing tagging should certainly be much higher than the hurdle to introduce a new tag for something that hasn't been tagged before. Which is precisely why I made a simple proposal for a new process in these situations. But isn't what TomH writes above exactly what we have? If you introduce something new that was never tagged before, you simply tag it any way you think makes sense and it is *very* unlikely that you will run into criticism; a few months down the road, when someone else asks how this thing should be tagged, you could say that you've been using this and that for a while now and he can just do the same. On the other hand, if your desire is to change something that already exists and ask people to tag it differently from now on, or even worse if you want people to agree on a blanket automatic change of millions of existing objects, then you'll have a much harder time convincing people that this is required. All this without any formal quorum or vote. No, this isn't exactly the happy situation TomH writes about. The highway=path example illustrates two dysfunctions with the current anarchic approach: 1 – Nobody can actually agree what highway=path means so it is being used in different senses all over the world, which reduces its usefulness to near zero 2 – One of the senses in which it is used, which was a large part of its original proposal, did in fact duplicate or deprecate existing tags (some of the oldest and most commonly used tags, in fact). Now we have them both operating in parallel, which is pointless and problematic for reasons previously explained We currently have no process for dealing with these problems, nor with (for example) the evident shortcomings of natural world / countryside tagging, as the hopeless disagreements around forest/wood illustrate. The OSM community can either pretend that we live in a world of perfect information and emergent consensus, or we can grow up and take a leaf out of every other successful open source project and set-up some processes where consensus is more difficult to reach. Regards, Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On 11 Aug 2009, at 09:20, Lauri Kytömaa wrote: Roy Wallace wrote: Is tagging the primary users intended to use the way verifiable? If not, it shouldn't be tagged. If it is, then is footway/cycleway As fine as it as a guideline, verifiability as a topic and was introduced into the wiki only in 2009, while footway and cycleway have been successfully used since ... the beginning. Even so the on the ground rule and verifiability have not been on the wiki for long. They have been the unwritten norms of the community since the beginning. With various topics being brought up on the mailing list, these unwritten community norms are being written down so that everyone can see them. It is also part of the process of the community maturing. Shaun smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi, Tom Chance wrote: 1 – Nobody can actually agree what highway=path means so it is being used in different senses all over the world, which reduces its usefulness to near zero Perhaps it really *is* useless and it was good that our process demonstrated that? We currently have no process for dealing with these problems, nor with (for example) the evident shortcomings of natural world / countryside tagging, as the hopeless disagreements around forest/wood illustrate. The OSM community can either pretend that we live in a world of perfect information and emergent consensus In my eyes, it is not required that the same tagging rules are used all over the world. It may be a pet peeve of mine but I think that the majority of people take this as given without ever spending a second thinking about whether this might not create more problems than it solves. We solve loads of very complex problems all the time - are we really sure that we are unable to cope with a database in which, say, Canada uses a slightly different tagging scheme than does Scandinavia? Do we really have to steamroll everyone in the whole world into submission to some sort of consensus with people on the other side of the planet? or we can grow up and take a leaf out of every other successful open source project and set-up some processes where consensus is more difficult to reach. I think that consensus is totally overrated. Rough consensus makes sense, but we have that, and everything else will work itself out eventually. All this talk about OSM being useless if consensus doesn't exist for the smallest detail is just scaremongering by people who cannot cope with complexity or diversity. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
2009/8/11 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org Hi, Tom Chance wrote: Well the hurdle to jump to change an existing tagging should certainly be much higher than the hurdle to introduce a new tag for something that hasn't been tagged before. Which is precisely why I made a simple proposal for a new process in these situations. But isn't what TomH writes above exactly what we have? If you introduce something new that was never tagged before, you simply tag it any way you think makes sense and it is *very* unlikely that you will run into criticism; a few months down the road, when someone else asks how this thing should be tagged, you could say that you've been using this and that for a while now and he can just do the same. On the other hand, if your desire is to change something that already exists and ask people to tag it differently from now on, or even worse if you want people to agree on a blanket automatic change of millions of existing objects, then you'll have a much harder time convincing people that this is required. All this without any formal quorum or vote. +1 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
2009/8/11 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org mailto:frede...@remote.org On the other hand, if your desire is to change something that already exists and ask people to tag it differently from now on, or even worse if you want people to agree on a blanket automatic change of millions of existing objects, then you'll have a much harder time convincing people that this is required. I think we are at a turning point now. Up to now, we could get away with changing existing tags, but as people start to use OSM for real world tasks and base software on it that is outside the OSM community, like other file formats, we really have to be more controlled about upward compatibility and support. People won't use OSM if we keep changing it in unexpected ways under their feet. We may realise we made a mistake doing something on way and not another, but we have to take into account the impact and cost of changes against the perceived problem something causes. For example, changing highway=gate to barrier=gate. That allowed for a consistent way of presenting barriers, but at the expense of anyone relying on gates to block routing through them for example not working (and if they weren't aware of the change - why should they be? - theior programs stopped being effective). This was a largely cosmetic change, a change for tidiness sake, not because it was necessary. Changing the common tags like footway/path or the main highway designations would be a disaster for these reasons. Consumers (people and software) want to have confidence in what we provide. They are worried about that from the point of view of people adding incorrect map data or not having complete map data, and breaking their software because of an arbitrary incompatible change adds to this. We need to live with our quirks, poor choices and so on more as time moves on. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Shaun McDonald wrote: As fine as it as a guideline, verifiability as a topic and was Even so the on the ground rule and verifiability have not been on the wiki for long. They have been the unwritten norms of the community since the I'm all for referring to that verifiability where it comes to legal and physical attributes (e.g. access=yes/designated/no or building:levels or width), yet trying to squeeze by force the old tags to comply - to the letter - to that norm seems counter productive. As with car access on very rough tracks: there could be tens of tags to describe the ground clearance, wheel size and suspension travel etc. required to get through, but instisting people start measuring them is too much work that anyone else would start doing so - users require something simplified from that - even if there's no widely accepted solution yet. The description of a way for other users than cars varies on multiple axes and fitting all that into one tag seems impossible; yet it's most of the time reasonable and simple to divide the decision space into two sets: cycleway and footway and use additional tags from there on. Some ways then are borderline cases or sufficiently outside of those two sets that they necessitate some other solution. Most of the time the intended use is unambiguous, either signedposted or evident from the location or structure. Where it's not, I trust people can classify things on a closed scale, even if with some personal judgement And to make those cases easier, there is a need for something in addition to the footway/cycleway pair. (Where does a coniferous forest turn into a mixed forest? One birch? One birch for every ten pinetrees? 25:75 distribution?) Much of the discussion would have been avoided if the documentation of footway and cycleway had been more exact already in the fall 2007 - it took me then quite a lot of reading to get to the logic and implications behind them, and many don't read that much of the scattered documentation which has lead to some of the pages having been changed around and misconceptions. The big question is just how can that be fixed? Alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
2009/8/11 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com 2009/8/11 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org mailto:frede...@remote.org On the other hand, if your desire is to change something that already exists and ask people to tag it differently from now on, or even worse if you want people to agree on a blanket automatic change of millions of existing objects, then you'll have a much harder time convincing people that this is required. I think we are at a turning point now. Up to now, we could get away with changing existing tags, but as people start to use OSM for real world tasks and base software on it that is outside the OSM community, like other file formats, we really have to be more controlled about upward compatibility and support. People won't use OSM if we keep changing it in unexpected ways under their feet. We may realise we made a mistake doing something on way and not another, but we have to take into account the impact and cost of changes against the perceived problem something causes. For example, changing highway=gate to barrier=gate. That allowed for a consistent way of presenting barriers, but at the expense of anyone relying on gates to block routing through them for example not working (and if they weren't aware of the change - why should they be? - theior programs stopped being effective). This was a largely cosmetic change, a change for tidiness sake, not because it was necessary. Changing the common tags like footway/path or the main highway designations would be a disaster for these reasons. Consumers (people and software) want to have confidence in what we provide. They are worried about that from the point of view of people adding incorrect map data or not having complete map data, and breaking their software because of an arbitrary incompatible change adds to this. We need to live with our quirks, poor choices and so on more as time moves on. I agree. We are starting to see people using OpenStreetMap data and they are now expecting some relatively well defined tags (minus the fuzzy definition for some). I am myself in that position. I am not sure I want to spend hours and hours to rewrite programs that are using some already defined scheme. We have to live with it, and to agree on the basic definition. There were some talks on agreeing on a definition, and I strongly believe that we should start here. While the current system may seem simple, I think it solves most, if not all problems. We are starting to split hairs in an impressive number of ways (and I won't even talk about the number nodes underpinning those ways). I understand that we want to reach some kind of perfection but as we say in France (in a very rough translation), the better is the enemy of good. In addition, there is a time where we have to decide to go with a system even if we know it is partially flawed. If it was an IT project, we would have gone over budget so many times that I would be scared to show my face to my bosses. I am not saying that we should compare OSM to an IT project, but we have to consider that there is currently an ecosystem out there using OSM with its current assumption and that if we keep changing things, we will lose people as it is a mess. After all, one of the rule of the Linux kernel is not to change any ABI. Once it is there, it stays there as it may break applications depending on that interface. As Frederik clearly stated and very rightfully, if your new tag is solving a new problem that nobody got before, no one will be complaining about it. We should stop reinventing the wheel. Let's work on those definitions first to make sure that everyone and every languages are on the same wavelength. In addition, I strongly believe that committees in a semi chaotic project are useless. I don't think the foundation should be involved in any of the tags decision. The foundation is not here to decide on the content. Emilie Laffray ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
