Thanks Matthijs, Fly, Erik ,Ilpo and Martin for your reply. I’ll say a few words on how I look at the matter. I have not discussed all this with co-author MasiMaster so this is my personal view.
*Proposal process (with or without voting) * As Fly stated a proposal is not needed to start using new tags. And yes we can start a new proposal without voting. The advantage of a proposal and discussion is that it improves documentation. We’ve gained more insight after the voting because of discussion in the voting section<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle_use_cycleway#Voting> and comments on the bicycle=use_cycleway talk<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Bicycle_use_cycleway> page. This will help us improve the proposal. What surprised me a bit was that discussions really started during voting. Remember this was my first proposal and I’ve only recently joined the tagging mailinglist so I may have been a bit naïve. For me the discussion about the proposal is the most important part of the proposal process. *To vote of not to vote?* To be honest I do not really take the voting too seriously. Why? 1. There are no absolute rules as to when it is approved/rejected (and I can understand that) 2. For some reason it seems that the ones that make the proposal can not vote. This is a barrier to team up with others because you then loose votes. 3. Only if you have a wiki account you can vote. 4. You can vote no without having given any objections to the proposal before voting. 5. You can always vote no just for an irrelevant reason. (and that is subjective, I know) 6. There are more then 1 million mappers and only a few vote (24 in this case). So even if the proposal is rejected I see no harm in starting to use the tag because it adds information to the database. And this proposal is not going to start an edit war either because it is not replacing any accepted tag. In Bremen<http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~peewee32/use_cycleway/Bicycle_use_cycleway.htm?map=cycleways&zoom=14&lat=53.08661&lon=8.82539&layers=B0000FFFFFFFTFFFFFFF> there are already roads tagged with this value. Even if the “final” proposal is different then it is fairly easy to change these tags. *Improvements in the next proposal* *Country specific access on these roads.* We’re thinking about making a country specific access scheme for various vehicles/situations on roads next to a compulsory cycleway. Something similar to this<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Germany>and we’re going to need some help from others for this as you can understand. *Give more and better examples* I think some have thought that parallel cycleway is always a straight cycleway next to a straight road. And as a consequence said it will not improve routing because a router should give preference to the cycleway. A situation like this<http://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=52.508705%2C13.273662&point=52.509385%2C13.270111&vehicle=BIKE&locale=nl> one could have made things clearer but could also confuse. *Routing or no routing in the proposal* Although I am convinced the new tag will improve routing we failed to make this clear (to all) in the proposal. We’ve had NO voters because of this. Routing is a consequence of proper (access) tagging. We have 2 options in our next proposal. 1) Not mention routing at all or 2) mention it and give some very good examples. W now think that we should not mention routing at all but you never know what we’re going to do. Better routing might convince some but it is also something that might complicate things. The fact that routers usually have the option of shortest route seems to be unknown or hard to understand. Though I probably do not have to convince you I will give one more example just for the record. I’ll use Bremen this time because of some roads being tagged with bicycle=use_cycleway. Here’s<http://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=53.080705%2C8.816603&point=53.081736%2C8.820584&vehicle=bike&locale=nl> what most routers would do when you want shortest route. They’ll propose a route over roads where you are not supposed to ride your bicycle. Here’s<http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~peewee32/use_cycleway/Bicycle_use_cycleway.htm?map=cycleways&zoom=18&lat=53.08103&lon=8.81895&layers=B0000TTTFFFFTFFFFFFF>the same situation showing which roads are tagged with bicycle=use_cycleway. That should give routers enough information to propose a better route. Cheers PeeWee32 2013/12/14 Matthijs Melissen <i...@matthijsmelissen.nl> > On 13 December 2013 19:37, Pee Wee <piewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We want to thank all the contributors to this discussion. We think and > > hope we have enough information to work on new proposal. > > Thank you for not giving up, and for trying to improve the proposal. > > I think many of the no-votes were the result of a lack of > understanding. Perhaps it would be good to find a couple of real-world > illustrations, and for each of them explain the legal situation, the > desired behaviour of the router, the current tagging situation, and > one (or more) proposed tagging schemes. Then you can show how the > current tagging does not allow desired routing in all cases, and how > proposed tagging schemes do or not not allow for a better routing. > > One of the things I was not convinced about in the previous vote is > the legal situation of cycling on roads next to a compulsory cycleway > (in various jurisdictions), and in particular whether or not it is > legal to use the main road to make a turn. Perhaps you can try to > clarify this with reference to law texts, opinions of experts, and > examples? > > -- Matthijs > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor openstreetmap<http://www.openstreetmap.nl/>.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
