Classification of Cycle Paths

To cut a long story short: There is no rule, telling you how it should be done, but all possibilities you have mentioned above are correct. The only hint I can give you is: Take a look in the surrounding area and try to use similar taggings. If there is no clear tagging, then choose your favourite one. Take care of access-Tags. You can find the default values for Germany in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_ … ns#Germany

Sorry for this answer, but this is the confused situation with bicycle- and footways in Germany.

Çağatay wrote:

I want to improve the bicycle/pedestrian roads of the town where I'm currently in, because it seems there are some inconsistencies in bicycle roads. For example, as far as I see, these 4 roads are similar - sidewalks for bikes and pedestrians, segregated by color/line. But,

With cycle-/footway along roads are two problem areas:
- map as its own way or as attributes of the road?
- what to use for a seperate way? cycleway, footway, path + access?

1) Use a seperate way if it is divided by some space from the road it is running along.
This means you may not change to the road at every point.
Division can be grass, trees, brusches, fence/guardrail etc.

A curb is for OSM-purpose not considered a seperation.
In this case footway/sidewalk=left/right/both/none and cycleway=track/...
as attribute on the road are the preffered way to express the situation.

2) When having combined ways for bicycles and pedestrians you have to decide to use
either highway=cycleway or highway=footway and give access to the other transportmode
with bicycle=yes/designated resp. foot=yes/designated. But there is no clear preference
which of the two to use.
Because of this uncertainty people startet to use highway=path together with explicitly
stating the access rights.

All three version are accepted forms to express combined cycle-/footways in OSM.
bicycle/foot=yes means it is allowed
bicycle/foot=designated express a legal designation. Cyclist/pedestrian must use this way,
other transport modes are not allowed to use this way.

Çağatay wrote:

• One is a separate cycle path (Paul-Gossen-Straße),
  
• One is a generic path (bicycle=yes, foot=yes, segregated=yes. (Koldestraße),
  
• One is a footpath (bicycle=designated, foot=yes. (Äußere Brucker Straße),
  
• One is not seperately shown but the main road is marked that there is a parallel track bike lane (Äußere Brucker Straße again).
  

I hope, that my explanations above, are sufficent for the mentioned roads. I don't know this area, so I'm not able to give any specific advise.

Çağatay wrote:

And also some paths are primarily for bikes, some are not a part of pavement but a lane of the main road etc. I don't know German so I can't read the documentation of classifications for Germany, can anyone summarize the classification of cycle&foot paths in English? 🙂 So I wouln't ruin the map with wrong corrections.

The english versions mainly explains the same as the german version.
If a cyclepath is part of the roadsurface, in other words a lane on the road, then you should use either
- cycleway=lane separated by a continuos line -> other vehicle are not allowed.
- cycleway=shared_lane separated by a dashed line -> other vehicle may use this lane.

PS: Welcome to OSM and the forum

Edbert (EvanE)

Thanks for the comments! Okay, then I will try my best to contribute to the map! 😄

EvanE wrote:

2) When having combined ways for bicycles and pedestrians you have to decide to use
either highway=cycleway or highway=footway and give access to the other transportmode
with bicycle=yes/designated resp. foot=yes/designated. But there is no clear preference
which of the two to use.
Because of this uncertainty people startet to use highway=path together with explicitly
stating the access rights.

All three version are accepted forms to express combined cycle-/footways in OSM.
bicycle/foot=yes means it is allowed
bicycle/foot=designated express a legal designation. Cyclist/pedestrian must use this way,
other transport modes are not allowed to use this way.

Like topic starte I am also a foreigner who likes to ride a bicycle in Germany. I've also seen that in Germany people use "path" for cycleway or combined cycleway/footway. I find this very confusing. Why? A path is very oftend used for an unpaved way. Most cycleways and footways (blue shields) are paved. If a surface tag is added it is better ofcourse but still... why use path?

The other thing I find confusing is that for an official cycleway (bleu shield with bicycle sign) the combination of highway=path and bicycle=YES is used. Bicycle= yes is meaningless because in Germany a Path implies that you are allowed to use a bicycle. If you want to indicate that it is a cycleway it is better to use bicycle=designated but still.... why use path?

So my suggestion is:

If it's a blue shield with a bicycle:
Highway=cycleway

If its a combination of cycleway/footway
highway=cycleway + foot = designated OR
highway=footway + bicycle=designated

The other thing I do not understand is that in Germany I see highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated. Could someone explain why the bicycle=designated is added because it seems to me that a highway=cyleway implies a bicycle=designated? If I understand this wiki a bicycle=designated is not neccesary for a 237 sign. (round blue shield with bicycle)

Cheers PeeWee

You're right with your confusion 😉

The legal situation about cycleways in germany is a bit confusing too, so most people don't even know when it is allowed to ride a bike on a way, when it isn't and when one has to drive on this cycleway (instead of a nearby street). This, accompanied by contradictory definitions on how to tag them even if you know the difference, reflects in unclear tagging as you've noticed it.

(sorry for my bad english)

rayquaza wrote:

You're right with your confusion 😉

The legal situation about cycleways in germany is a bit confusing too, so most people don't even know when it is allowed to ride a bike on a way, when it isn't and when one has to drive on this cycleway (instead of a nearby street). This, accompanied by contradictory definitions on how to tag them even if you know the difference, reflects in unclear tagging as you've noticed it.

Yes I understand and JOSM presets do not help either.

A dedicated cycleway : highway=cycleway
A combined cycleway/footway: highway=path
A dedicated footway: highway=footway

I guess EvanE is right when he writes "Because of this uncertainty people startet to use highway=path together with explicitly
stating the access rights. " JOSM could not decide between cycleway and footway so decided to take.... "path" 🤔 Does not make sense to me.

I guess the English wiki is quite clear on what a path is.

rayquaza wrote:

(sorry for my bad english)

It's a lot better then my German 😉

PeeWee32 wrote:

I've also seen that in Germany people use "path" for cycleway or combined cycleway/footway. I find this very confusing. Why? A path is very oftend used for an unpaved way.

highway=path does not imply an unpaved surface. That's just one of several subjective interpretations people have tacked onto the value later (and it's not universally accepted). By design, "path" combined with explicit access tags was supposed to replace the footway, cycleway and bridleway values entirely.

Those occurences of highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=designated for combined cycleway/footway follow this originally documented intention of the tag. But with said proposal being partially (but not entirely...) rejected, many mappers sticking to the traditional tags, and alternative interpretations emerging over time, there are now several different styles of expressing the same thing.

Could someone explain why the bicycle=designated is added because it seems to me that a highway=cyleway implies a bicycle=designated?

Well, due to all the confusion about what the highway values mean, the only safe solution is to tag surface and access rights explicitly...

PeeWee32 wrote:

rayquaza wrote:

You're right with your confusion 😉

The legal situation about cycleways in germany is a bit confusing too, so most people don't even know when it is allowed to ride a bike on a way, when it isn't and when one has to drive on this cycleway (instead of a nearby street). This, accompanied by contradictory definitions on how to tag them even if you know the difference, reflects in unclear tagging as you've noticed it.

Yes I understand and JOSM presets do not help either.
http://i41.tinypic.com/e7njvb.jpg
A dedicated cycleway : highway=cycleway
A combined cycleway/footway: highway=path
A dedicated footway: highway=footway

I guess EvanE is right when he writes "Because of this uncertainty people startet to use highway=path together with explicitly
stating the access rights. " JOSM could not decide between cycleway and footway so decided to take.... "path" 🤔 Does not make sense to me.

I guess the English wiki is quite clear on what a path is.

The problem seems to me (not only in Germany) that there are explicit tags for pedestrian and bicyle only, but ambiguities for dual use. I'm not sure whether the approach used in JOSM preset is that wrong. The first sentence for path is: "A non-specific or shared-use path."
Using path only contradicts the intuitive use of it for unpaved ways outside residential areas.
There is a corresponding disagreement whether to use footway for hiking trails in the wilderness only used by pedestrians.

PeeWee32 wrote:

The other thing I do not understand is that in Germany I see highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated. Could someone explain why the bicycle=designated is added because it seems to me that a highway=cycleway implies a bicycle=designated?

In Germany there are different cycleways:
1. cycleways with the blue sign, where you have to cycle (by law), instead the parallel road.
2. cycleways without any sign, or with a white painted bicycle on the ground. There you can cycle if you want (cycling on the parallel road is also allowed)

1: highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated
2: highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes

The bicycle=designated(/yes) is added, to differ those both ways.

It is a bit confusing about combined foot- and cycleways. I don't not use path. I choose the best match way. If the way is made for cyclists and suitable, i choose cycleway.

At least, I wonder why we need the implication bicycle=designated? I think it is better to tag the access tags separately from the type of way! This is also the reason why I don't think a path + bicycle=designated is the same as a cycleway. I think a footway is a more specific path, and a cycleway a more specific path (or footway). I know this is not common on OSM, but it would be nice.

MasiMaster wrote:

In Germany there are different cycleways:
1. cycleways with the blue sign, where you have to cycle (by law), instead the parallel road.
2. cycleways without any sign, or with a white painted bicycle on the ground. There you can cycle if you want (cycling on the parallel road is also allowed)

1: highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated
2: highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes

The bicycle=designated(/yes) is added, to differ those both ways.

It is a bit confusing about combined foot- and cycleways. I don't not use path. I choose the best match way. If the way is made for cyclists and suitable, i choose cycleway.

At least, I wonder why we need the implication bicycle=designated? I think it is better to tag the access tags separately from the type of way! This is also the reason why I don't think a path + bicycle=designated is the same as a cycleway. I think a footway is a more specific path, and a cycleway a more specific path (or footway). I know this is not common on OSM, but it would be nice.

A highway=footway/cycleway may be a way intended for walking resp. cycling but may be not marked by a traffic sign (in the current case for germany a blue round sign with bicycle and/or pedestrian).
Tagging footway/cycleway=designated tell others the way is marked with a traffic sign which has some legal implications.

For a cycleway without pedestrian (and for footways without cyclist) highway=cycleway (resp. highway=footway) is the prefered tagging.
With the ambiguity concerning combined cycle- and footways tagging highway=path + bicycle=designated + foot=designated is in widespread use.
With this example some people think, that always using highway=path for ways below roads is a better way expressing things.

Edbert (EvanE)

MasiMaster wrote:

PeeWee32 wrote:

The other thing I do not understand is that in Germany I see highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated. Could someone explain why the bicycle=designated is added because it seems to me that a highway=cycleway implies a bicycle=designated?

ACK.

MasiMaster wrote:

In Germany there are different cycleways:

1. ....
2. cycleways without any sign, or with a white painted bicycle on the ground. There you can cycle if you want (cycling on the parallel road is also allowed)

Are these really cycleways? I mean no.

MasiMaster wrote:

1: highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated

Cycleway implies designated (English Wiki). German Wiki differs as often.

MasiMaster wrote:

2: highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes

bicycle=yes is IMHO nonsens. Is often used to mark other ways with a bicycle route. This is not correct.

Wolmatinger wrote:

MasiMaster wrote:

In Germany there are different cycleways:
1. ....
2. cycleways without any sign, or with a white painted bicycle on the ground. There you can cycle if you want (cycling on the parallel road is also allowed)

Are these really cycleways? I mean no.

Do you know "Schutzstreifen"? And there are other cycleways, without a sign (because in germany don't exist a sign for a cycleway without the strict law: you have to cycle there). So sometimes a bicycle painted on the ground. A sidewalk with no sign, but the half of the way paved in red color (cycleway-color in germany), it is a cycleway too (where you can cycle)!

Wolmatinger wrote:

MasiMaster wrote:

1: highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated

Cycleway implies designated (English Wiki). German Wiki differs as often.

I know! But it is better without the implication, because of the different access-rules i explained above.

Wolmatinger wrote:

MasiMaster wrote:

2: highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes

bicycle=yes is IMHO nonsens. Is often used to mark other ways with a bicycle route. This is not correct.

It is not nonsens! With the implication we need it... The bicycle=yes overwrite the designated to set the correct access tag. This is why I say: the implication is nonsense!

MasiMaster wrote:

Wolmatinger wrote:

MasiMaster wrote:

In Germany there are different cycleways:
1. ....
2. cycleways without any sign, or with a white painted bicycle on the ground. There you can cycle if you want (cycling on the parallel road is also allowed)

Are these really cycleways? I mean no.

Do you know "Schutzstreifen"? And there are other cycleways, without a sign (because in germany don't exist a sign for a cycleway without the strict law: you have to cycle there). So sometimes a bicycle painted on the ground. A sidewalk with no sign, but the half of the way paved in red color (cycleway-color in germany), it is a cycleway too (where you can cycle)!

Cycleway are always ways with a sign (237, 240, 241, 244). All the others are track, path ...

Schutzstreifen sind ebensowenig als cycleway zu sehen:

Auszug aus StVO:
Wer ein Fahrzeug führt, darf auf der Fahrbahn durch Leitlinien
markierte Schutzstreifen für den Radverkehr nur bei Bedarf
überfahren. Der Radverkehr darf dabei nicht gefährdet
werden.

Andere können diese benutzen. Der Radfahrer kann muss aber nicht. Die Nicht-Gefährdung gilt gem. §1 auch für andere Straßen/Wege. Der einzige Vorteil, den ein Radler davon hat, ist dass da Parkverbot herrscht (siehe 3.).

3. Wer ein Fahrzeug führt, darf auf durch Leitlinien markierten
Schutzstreifen für den Radverkehr nicht parken.

Wolmatinger wrote:

MasiMaster wrote:

1: highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated

Cycleway implies designated (English Wiki). German Wiki differs as often.

I know! But it is better without the implication, because of the different access-rules i explained above.

Then you should change the English Wiki.

Wolmatinger wrote:

MasiMaster wrote:

2: highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes

bicycle=yes is IMHO nonsens. Is often used to mark other ways with a bicycle route. This is not correct.

It is not nonsens! With the implication we need it... The bicycle=yes overwrite the designated to set the correct access tag. This is why I say: the implication is nonsense!

Why is highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes correcter than highway=cycleway? I don't understand.

Sorry for some text in German.

bicycle=yes:
Is used sometimes to say that the tagging of the way is o.k.
All the ways of a bicycle route has this tag.
This kind of tagging is false.

I don't understand, why experienced mappers offers all the tagging possibilities for e.g. cyleways instead of prefering one, to reduce the chaos in OSM.

We seem to have 2 discussions going.

1. What's the best way to tag a combined cycleway/footway?
2. Why and when to add a bicycle=yes/designated to a highway=cycleway

What's the best way to tag a combined cycleway/footway?

Tordanik wrote:

PeeWee32 wrote:

I've also seen that in Germany people use "path" for cycleway or combined cycleway/footway. I find this very confusing. Why? A path is very oftend used for an unpaved way.

highway=path does not imply an unpaved surface. That's just one of several subjective interpretations people have tacked onto the value later (and it's not universally accepted). By design, "path" combined with explicit access tags was supposed to replace the footway, cycleway and bridleway values entirely.

Those occurences of highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=designated for combined cycleway/footway follow this originally documented intention of the tag. But with said proposal being partially (but not entirely...) rejected, many mappers sticking to the traditional tags, and alternative interpretations emerging over time, there are now several different styles of expressing the same thing.

I aggree that a path does not mean that it is unpaved but.... I think most routers will interpret this as unpaved when there is no surface tag. The same goes for cycleway. Most routers will interpret a cycleway without surface tag as paved. So in order to keep things as simple as possible I still suggest to tags these combined cycleway/footway as

A: highway=cycleway + foot=designated (or)
B: highway=footway + bicycle=designated

I prefer A because in many countries it is OK to walk on cycleways where it is not OK to cycle on footways. As a foreigner I don't know if it is allowed to walk on a cycleway in Germany (but I have seen many do it 😉 ) If the designated tag is missing I think A will give the best results in most routers/renderers.

seichter wrote:

The problem seems to me (not only in Germany) that there are explicit tags for pedestrian and bicyle only, but ambiguities for dual use. I'm not sure whether the approach used in JOSM preset is that wrong. The first sentence for path is: "A non-specific or shared-use path."
Using path only contradicts the intuitive use of it for unpaved ways outside residential areas.
There is a corresponding disagreement whether to use footway for hiking trails in the wilderness only used by pedestrians.

I aggree that eg a : highway=path + bicycle=designated + foot=designated + surface=asphalt is not "completely wrong" for a normal combined cycleway/footway but... I find it confusing and not neccesary. If we would use the simpeler: highway=cycleway + foot=designated
most routers/renderers will interpret this OK (even without the surface tag)

Why and when to add a bicycle=yes/designated to a highway=cycleway

MasiMaster wrote:

In Germany there are different cycleways:
1. cycleways with the blue sign, where you have to cycle (by law), instead the parallel road.
2. cycleways without any sign, or with a white painted bicycle on the ground. There you can cycle if you want (cycling on the parallel road is also allowed)

1: highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated
2: highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes

The bicycle=designated(/yes) is added, to differ those both ways.

I do not remember seeing option 2 in Germany (how do I recognise a cycleway without a sign?) but... i guess in NL we have more or less the same situation. We have 3 types of cycleways:

1 cycleway were you may cycle but you do not have to. In case there is a parralel road you may also use this. Moped and mofa are not allowed on this cycleway.

Common tagging: highway=cycleway + mofa=no ( which implies a Moped = no). Parallel road does not need extra tagging or maybe just a bicycle=yes

2 cycleway that has to be used. In case there is a parralel road you may NOT use this. Moped is not allowed but mofa is allowed on this cycleway.

Common tagging: highway=cycleway + moped=no ( which implies a Moped = no). Parallel road gets a bicycle=no

3 Combined cycleway for bicycles and moped. In case there is a parralel road you may NOT use this. This goes for bicycles, mofas and mopeds.

Common tagging: highway=cycleway + moped=designated ( which implies a Mofa=designated). Parallel road gets a bicycle=no (and a moped=no but this is very often forgotten because we have more cycling mappers then moped-mappers 😉 )

Here's an example of all these three types of cycleways om a mapnik map. (wait a few seconds till the ways show up. clicking the way will give you OSM tagging)

As you can see there is no= bicycle=yes or a bicycle=designated on a highway=cycleway.

MasiMaster wrote:

1: highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated
2: highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes

The bicycle=designated(/yes) is added, to differ those both ways.

If a legal status means different access tags I would say.. OK map the acces tags but if in practice there is no difference between the 2 then why add the bicycle=yes/designated tag? Which renderer or router uses this information? This still seems redundant to me.

I am not in favour off mapping legal issues in OSM unless these have a practical use in rendering/routing etc.

Are there any practical differences between the 2?

PeeWee32 wrote:

As a foreigner I don't know if it is allowed to walk on a cycleway in Germany (but I have seen many do it 😉 )

It isn't (except where explictly allowed or to cross it (like a regular street)).

rayquaza wrote:

PeeWee32 wrote:

As a foreigner I don't know if it is allowed to walk on a cycleway in Germany (but I have seen many do it 😉 )

It isn't (except where explictly allowed or to cross it (like a regular street)).

I could have guessed since you have combined cycleways/footways. In NL it is allowed to walk on cycleways unless there is a sidewalk/footway next to it. Goes to show that we're a long way from a uniform Europe 😉

PeeWee32 wrote:

Why and when to add a bicycle=yes/designated to a highway=cycleway

MasiMaster wrote:

In Germany there are different cycleways:
1. cycleways with the blue sign, where you have to cycle (by law), instead the parallel road.
2. cycleways without any sign, or with a white painted bicycle on the ground. There you can cycle if you want (cycling on the parallel road is also allowed)

1: highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated
2: highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes

The bicycle=designated(/yes) is added, to differ those both ways.

I do not remember seeing option 2 in Germany (how do I recognise a cycleway without a sign?) but... i guess in NL we have more or less the same situation.

Yes, that is a problem in Germany. In past all cycleways had the blue circle sign. Now we have also ways without the sign. But we don't have any other sign, only the painted bicycle symbol or a colored part on a footway.

PeeWee32 wrote:

We have 3 types of cycleways:
1 cycleway were you may cycle but you do not have to. In case there is a parralel road you may also use this. Moped and mofa are not allowed on this cycleway.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … 13.svg.png
Common tagging: highway=cycleway + mofa=no ( which implies a Moped = no). Parallel road does not need extra tagging or maybe just a bicycle=yes

2 cycleway that has to be used. In case there is a parallel road you may NOT use this. Moped is not allowed but mofa is allowed on this cycleway.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … 11.svg.png
Common tagging: highway=cycleway + moped=no ( which implies a Moped = no). Parallel road gets a bicycle=no

3 Combined cycleway for bicycles and moped. In case there is a parallel road you may NOT use this. This goes for bicycles, mofas and mopeds.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … 2a.svg.png
Common tagging: highway=cycleway + moped=designated ( which implies a Mofa=designated). Parallel road gets a bicycle=no (and a moped=no but this is very often forgotten because we have more cycling mappers then moped-mappers 😉 )

Are there any practical differences between the 2?

In Germany there are some options, that you can cycle on the road even if there is a sign like at your No. 2:
- You can choose to cross a junction on road or cycleway.
- If the cycleway is impassible.
- If you have a bicycle which is more wide then normal.
- etc

I think this is similar in other countries!? So in Germany it is wrong to tag the road with bicycle=no! Bicycle=no is only tagged at

To tag something at the road would be nice for routers, but bicycle=no is wrong by my mind.

I think it is better, to separate the highway tag from integrated access tags. If we use "designated" for a hard restricted way like No.2, and "yes" for a way where cycling is allowed (No.1) we can connect the sign with access tags and the law together and reverse.

I know that in France there are a quadratic blue sign is similar to your example from No. 1

MasiMaster wrote:

Yes, that is a problem in Germany. In past all cycleways had the blue circle sign. Now we have also ways without the sign. But we don't have any other sign, only the painted bicycle symbol or a colored part on a footway.

But still.... what is the practical difference between the two? different acces tags? If not... then why map them differntely? Only because one has a blue sign and the other does not? I do not think that this is a good idea. OSM is international so I think it is a good idea to stay away form country specific tagging unless there is a very good reason to do so.

MasiMaster wrote:

In Germany there are some options, that you can cycle on the road even if there is a sign like at your No. 2:
- You can choose to cross a junction on road or cycleway.
- If the cycleway is impassible.
- If you have a bicycle which is more wide then normal.
- etc

I think this is similar in other countries!? So in Germany it is wrong to tag the road with bicycle=no! Bicycle=no is only tagged at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/ … 54.svg.png

To tag something at the road would be nice for routers, but bicycle=no is wrong by my mind.

I disaggree completely. Why are only roads with this sign tagged as bicycle=no when in practice there are also other roads that are forbidden for cyclist. In NL we have more or less the same situation. Not all roads that are forbidden for cyclists have this sign (wide velomobiles e.g. are allowed on the road unless there is this bicycle-forbidden sign) but that does not mean we do not tag others roads with bicyle=no. How should a router/renderer tell the difference if we don't tag this info in OSM. I know... you could say that a road is forbidden for cyclist if there is a cycleway with bicycle=designated next to it ..but ...how far away from the road is this then? We can not have all routers/renderers guess how far from each others the road and cycleway have to be so to keep things simple (and universal) we just add a bicyle=no to all roads where a bicycle is forbidden. I hope most Germans will do the same.

NB for special wide bicycles (like velomobiles) a new tag could be used... something like= "Velomobile=yes/no".

PeeWee32 wrote:

MasiMaster wrote:

Yes, that is a problem in Germany. In past all cycleways had the blue circle sign. Now we have also ways without the sign. But we don't have any other sign, only the painted bicycle symbol or a colored part on a footway.

But still.... what is the practical difference between the two? different acces tags? If not... then why map them differntely? Only because one has a blue sign and the other does not? I do not think that this is a good idea. OSM is international so I think it is a good idea to stay away form country specific tagging unless there is a very good reason to do so.

- bicycle=yes => a cyclist is allowed to use this way
e.g. a shared use way
- bicycle=designated => the way is marked with a traffic sign.
a cyclist is legally obligated to use this way
others are not allowed to use this way
(if not signd explicitly otherwise)

I think this difference exists in many countries, if they have cycleways at all.
The tagging is international, but legal implication might slightly vary by country.

PeeWee32 wrote:

MasiMaster wrote:

I think this is similar in other countries!? So in Germany it is wrong to tag the road with bicycle=no! Bicycle=no is only tagged at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/ … 54.svg.png

To tag something at the road would be nice for routers, but bicycle=no is wrong by my mind.

I disaggree completely. Why are only roads with this sign tagged as bicycle=no when in practice there are also other roads that are forbidden for cyclist. ... How should a router/renderer tell the difference if we don't tag this info in OSM. I know... you could say that a road is forbidden for cyclist if there is a cycleway with bicycle=designated next to it ..but ...how far away from the road is this then? We can not have all routers/renderers guess how far from each others the road and cycleway have to be so to keep things simple (and universal) we just add a bicyle=no to all roads where a bicycle is forbidden. I hope most Germans will do the same.

bicycle=no, expresses never to use this road with a bicyle.
To tagg bicycle=no on every road with an adjactend cycleway would be wrong. There are occasions where you must / are allowed use the road instead the cycleway:
- the cycleway is impassable (snow, debris, obstacles, construction, ...)
- the cycleway does not lead to your destination
(e.g. a crossing is not reachable from the cycleway)
- a group of cyclist is allowed to use the road instead of the cycleway
(this might depend on loacl legislation)
- ...

If you tagg a road with bicycle=no you are (under any circumstances) not allowed to use this road with a bicycle. But this is perfectly wrong if the road ist not marked with a traffic sign stating "never use a bicycle".
Please don't try to urge german Mapper to use your wrong NL tagging practice.

PS: There sould be no problems with router, for they should allways prefere cycleways. No need to look for a nearby road.

Edbert (EvanE)

@EvanE: +1

One disadvantage of the bicycle=no Tagging is that it can produce subtile errors like this one:

http://www.openrouteservice.org/index.p … ways=false

Here the bicycle=no on the main road prevents the ability for cyclists to cross the road at this point.

Chris

EvanE wrote:

If you tagg a road with bicycle=no you are (under any circumstances) not allowed to use this road with a bicycle. But this is perfectly wrong if the road ist not marked with a traffic sign stating "never use a bicycle".
Please don't try to urge german Mapper to use your wrong NL tagging practice.

Well ...thanks for clearing this. I thought that in Germany (like in NL) there was a law that forbids cyclist to ride their bicyle on this road when there is a cycleway (blue shield with bicycle) next to the road (in all situations) . If I understand you correctly it is still allowed to cycle these roads (in some suituations) . In that case ofcourse a bicycle=no would be wrong although one might argue about what is the best tagging. Tagging the mayority of the situatioins versus all possible exeptions . All I am saying is that IF it is not allowed to cycle a road just add a bicyle=no so no router/renderer will make a mistake. And .... I am not urging you to use NL tagging practice (which is not so wrong for our situation 😉 ) . I am just trying to understand German mapping practice (and why it is confusing when it comes to cycleways)

EvanE wrote:

PS: There sould be no problems with router, for they should allways prefere cycleways. No need to look for a nearby road.

Sorry but I do not agree. If I ask a router to serve me the shortest possible route I still l hope it will direct me over roads that are allowed cycling on. Not just cycleways.

chris66 wrote:

@EvanE: +1

One disadvantage of the bicycle=no Tagging is that it can produce subtile errors like this one:

http://www.openrouteservice.org/index.p … ways=false

Here the bicycle=no on the main road prevents the ability for cyclists to cross the road at this point.

Chris

I'm not familiair wit this situations but.... the routing would have been the same even if the Raifaissenstrasse has a "bicycle forbidden" sign. The problem here seems to be a mapping error which seems to fail to connect the "Moorweg" and "An der Brucke" in such a way that routing goes OK. If the Bing image is correct i would have used 2 seperate ways connecting these 2 roads. A bicycle=no on the Raifaissenstrasse would in that case not interfere routing.

PeeWee32 wrote:

EvanE wrote:

If you tagg a road with bicycle=no you are (under any circumstances) not allowed to use this road with a bicycle. But this is perfectly wrong if the road ist not marked with a traffic sign stating "never use a bicycle".

Well ...thanks for clearing this. I thought that in Germany (like in NL) there was a law that forbids cyclist to ride their bicyle on this road when there is a cycleway (blue shield with bicycle) next to the road (in all situations). If I understand you correctly it is still allowed to cycle these roads (in some suituations) . In that case ofcourse a bicycle=no would be wrong

You did understand correctly. I think the biggest problem with cycleway-tagging in germany is that most people don't know those differences. So even if there would be an clear definition on how to tag them, mappers would also have to learn to tell these. Also any definition about this would either make more than 50% of the cycleways in germany tagged wrongly or required an additional tag (but maybe both of them would be better than the current situation).

PeeWee32 wrote:

EvanE wrote:

PS: There sould be no problems with router, for they should allways prefere cycleways. No need to look for a nearby road.

Sorry but I do not agree. If I ask a router to serve me the shortest possible route I still l hope it will direct me over roads that are allowed cycling on. Not just cycleways.

Besides that, there are people out there who want to avoid suchs streets, where they would have to use a Segregated cycle facility (Radverkehtsanlage) (but Cycleways without an nearby street would be acceptable to some of them).

PeeWee32 wrote:

chris66 wrote:

One disadvantage of the bicycle=no Tagging is that it can produce subtile errors like this one:
http://www.openrouteservice.org/index.p … ways=false
Here the bicycle=no on the main road prevents the ability for cyclists to cross the road at this point.

I'm not familiair wit this situations but.... the routing would have been the same even if the Raifaissenstrasse has a "bicycle forbidden" sign. The problem here seems to be a mapping error which seems to fail to connect the "Moorweg" and "An der Brucke" in such a way that routing goes OK. If the Bing image is correct i would have used 2 seperate ways connecting these 2 roads. A bicycle=no on the Raifaissenstrasse would in that case not interfere routing.

In this example one might have mapped it in a simpler way, wich connects "Moorweg" and "An der Brucke" directly.
But the problem of two crossing with a small offset remains and is not uncommon in reality and our data, since we have good aerial imagery.

Edbert (EvanE)

rayquaza wrote:

PeeWee32 wrote:

EvanE wrote:

If you tagg a road with bicycle=no you are (under any circumstances) not allowed to use this road with a bicycle. But this is perfectly wrong if the road ist not marked with a traffic sign stating "never use a bicycle".

Well ...thanks for clearing this. I thought that in Germany (like in NL) there was a law that forbids cyclist to ride their bicyle on this road when there is a cycleway (blue shield with bicycle) next to the road (in all situations). If I understand you correctly it is still allowed to cycle these roads (in some suituations) . In that case ofcourse a bicycle=no would be wrong

I think the biggest problem with cycleway-tagging in germany is that most people don't know those differences.

BTW: This is another argument for separate the access tag from cycleway: a mapper can add a cycleway and if (s)he know the sign/law, (s)he can also add bicycle=*. If not, the next mapper can add this tag.

If I ride a special bike, in NL all bicycle=no tagging on road is wrong. It is better to introduce a new tag! (...instead use the same tag for different sign/law.)

Tagging the nearby road additional to the cycleway would be nice for routers: If I don't like to cycle on a cycleway, i can ignore those roads with new bicycle tagging.

rayquaza wrote:

You did understand correctly. I think the biggest problem with cycleway-tagging in germany is that most people don't know those differences. So even if there would be an clear definition on how to tag them, mappers would also have to learn to tell these. Also any definition about this would either make more than 50% of the cycleways in germany tagged wrongly or required an additional tag (but maybe both of them would be better than the current situation).

I guess you are right and I also think that an extra tag could solve this issue. I understand there are 2 type of roads thatt are forbidden for cyclist
1 road with a bicyle-forbidden sign (in all situations)
2 roads that ar forbidden for most situations except some ... (eg a road next to a cycleway that is compulsary.)

Current situation in Germany :
Number 1 gets a bicycle=no
Number 2 does not

The current problem with bicycle routing is that most routers will not always avoid number 2 for ordinary bicycles. Whenever I cycle in Germany I use a Garmin device with an OSM based map. Very often the route goes over a road (number 2) on which I am not allowed to cycle. Here is an example (I hope it is a good example because I am not familiar over there)

If a bicycle=no would have been added, routing would be OK ... but...I now understand this is "not done" in Germany. I still wonder how I should tag roads/cycleways in Germany in such a way that I will not be sent on roads that do not allow (ordinary) bicycles.

I like rayquaza's idea to give number2 a bicycle=no and in addition add a new tag so that we can tell the diffence between the 2 type of roads. How about something like "special-bicycle=yes" . If you have any other suggestion to improve bicycle routing please tell.

PeeWee32 wrote:

If you have any other suggestion to improve bicycle routing please tell.

You can eventually use bicycle=avoid or bicycle=limited for the type-2 road.
Both tags are used ca. 100 times in the OSM DB.

MasiMaster wrote:

If I ride a special bike, in NL all bicycle=no tagging on road is wrong. It is better to introduce a new tag! (...instead use the same tag for different sign/law.)

You are right. In NL we have more or less the same situation as in DE. I aggree that although it is quite normal to add a bicycle=no on a number2 road in NL it is not 100% right because of the special bikes. But still.... I think it is better then the absence of the bicycle=no because in that case routing will not be perfect for normal bikes and special bikes. That's why I also think OSM is better of with a new tag to separate the 2 types.

NB
I have a special bike (Velomobile) which allows me to ride the number2 typ roads (at least in NL). Nevertheless I do not really mind that number2 type roads are tagged with a bicycle=no because it is not always safe to ride these with a special bike. Many car drivers do no know this and think I am breaking the rule. Besides... my special bike has 3 wheels so it is ... definitly not a bicycle 😉

PeeWee32 wrote:

I like rayquaza's idea to give number2 a bicycle=no and in addition add a new tag so that we can tell the diffence between the 2 type of roads. How about something like "special-bicycle=yes" . If you have any other suggestion to improve bicycle routing please tell.

I not meant to use bicycle=no with an other tag, but maybe something like bicycle=if_you_cant_get_to_the_intersection_via_a_forced_cycleway_or_if_the_cycleway_is_unusable (well, maybe with a shorter value) for the road and forced_to_use_this_cycleway=yes (again: maybe with a shorter key) for the cycleway. I'm currently using "de:rwbp"=yes for the latter (RWBP stands for "Radwegbenutzungspflicht", translated something like "legal obligation to use a cycleway").

Routers could first try to find a route with using all of those ways and if they found a route over the street check if nearly the same route (maybe turning on the same crossing with an maximum detour of 10% and without using another road more than 20m?) is possible via a cycleway (also checking the cycleway for i.e. width=* to check if it's usable for this specific vehicle).

PeeWee32 wrote:

MasiMaster wrote:

If I ride a special bike, in NL all bicycle=no tagging on road is wrong. It is better to introduce a new tag! (...instead use the same tag for different sign/law.)

You are right. In NL we have more or less the same situation as in DE. I aggree that although it is quite normal to add a bicycle=no on a number2 road in NL it is not 100% right because of the special bikes. But still.... I think it is better then the absence of the bicycle=no because in that case routing will not be perfect for normal bikes and special bikes. That's why I also think OSM is better of with a new tag to separate the 2 types.

It's not always the type of bicycle, often there is a intersection which you can't reach without to use the road. (this also said EvanE and rayquaza)

chris66 wrote:

PeeWee32 wrote:

If you have any other suggestion to improve bicycle routing please tell.

You can eventually use bicycle=avoid or bicycle=limited for the type-2 road.
Both tags are used ca. 100 times in the OSM DB.

+1

PeeWee32 wrote:

I like rayquaza's idea to give number2 a bicycle=no and in addition add a new tag so that we can tell the diffence between the 2 type of roads. How about something like "special-bicycle=yes" . If you have any other suggestion to improve bicycle routing please tell.

bicycle=no is tagging for router. Better to use i.e. bicycle=avoid, and if this tagging is common, router will use it too.

rayquaza wrote:

forced_to_use_this_cycleway=yes (again: maybe with a shorter key) for the cycleway

this tag is bicycle=designated 🙂

rayquaza wrote:

PeeWee32 wrote:

I like rayquaza's idea to give number2 a bicycle=no and in addition add a new tag so that we can tell the diffence between the 2 type of roads. How about something like "special-bicycle=yes" . If you have any other suggestion to improve bicycle routing please tell.

I not meant to use bicycle=no with an other tag, but maybe something like bicycle=if_you_cant_get_to_the_intersection_via_a_forced_cycleway_or_if_the_cycleway_is_unusable (well, maybe with a shorter value) for the road and forced_to_use_this_cycleway=yes (again: maybe with a shorter key) for the cycleway. I'm currently using "de:rwbp"=yes for the latter (RWBP stands for "Radwegbenutzungspflicht", translated something like "legal obligation to use a cycleway").

Thanks. I also think 1 tag is better then adding a new one. I understand you use the rwpb when there is no common tagging but I prefer a more international tagging because routers/renderers already have enough problems with different taggins scheme's between countries. Let's see if we can find a better one.

rayquaza wrote:

Routers could first try to find a route with using all of those ways and if they found a route over the street check if nearly the same route (maybe turning on the same crossing with an maximum detour of 10% and without using another road more than 20m?) is possible via a cycleway (also checking the cycleway for i.e. width=* to check if it's usable for this specific vehicle).

+1 . All we need to do is make sure we use the right tagging then routers will come up with the best route 😉

MasiMaster wrote:

rayquaza wrote:

forced_to_use_this_cycleway=yes (again: maybe with a shorter key) for the cycleway

this tag is bicycle=designated 🙂

This tag is contrary to your own wiki page.

In Germany there are ways with sign 240/241 more or less parallel to a road and the same rights of way as the road. These ways you have to use.

Then there are ways across country with these signs, which only say that there are allowed bikes and foot only. In narrower sense this signs are incorrect by-law.
Fact is that these sign are there and therefore you must distinguish the tagging of the ways.
For ways which you have to use I tag: cycleway=track/lane + bicycle/foot=official + ..., the other: highway=path + bicycle/foot=designated.
There are other possible taggings, but you should use only one IMHO. Necessary is an agreement which to use, but this is the problem.

MasiMaster wrote:

PeeWee32 wrote:

MasiMaster wrote:

If I ride a special bike, in NL all bicycle=no tagging on road is wrong. It is better to introduce a new tag! (...instead use the same tag for different sign/law.)

You are right. In NL we have more or less the same situation as in DE. I aggree that although it is quite normal to add a bicycle=no on a number2 road in NL it is not 100% right because of the special bikes. But still.... I think it is better then the absence of the bicycle=no because in that case routing will not be perfect for normal bikes and special bikes. That's why I also think OSM is better of with a new tag to separate the 2 types.

It's not always the type of bicycle, often there is a intersection which you can't reach without to use the road. (this also said EvanE and rayquaza)

Ok thanks. I just wonder... how can you tell which part of this road is OK to use in that case? Are there any signs telling it is OK to use it? Can someone give an example (google streetviewe maybe?)

If there is a smal part of the road that can be used for a bicycle wouldn't it be better to give only this part a "bicycle=yes"?

MasiMaster wrote:

chris66 wrote:

PeeWee32 wrote:

If you have any other suggestion to improve bicycle routing please tell.

You can eventually use bicycle=avoid or bicycle=limited for the type-2 road.
Both tags are used ca. 100 times in the OSM DB.

+1

+1 but I do not know which is better. I can only find this documentation on Avoid but that does not seem to be what we are looking for. It looks very subjective to me. More opinions on what tag to use?

MasiMaster wrote:

PeeWee32 wrote:

I like rayquaza's idea to give number2 a bicycle=no and in addition add a new tag so that we can tell the diffence between the 2 type of roads. How about something like "special-bicycle=yes" . If you have any other suggestion to improve bicycle routing please tell.

bicycle=no is tagging for router.

That depends on the definition one uses for a bicycle 😉.

MasiMaster wrote:

Better to use i.e. bicycle=avoid, and if this tagging is common, router will use it too.

+1 although I am not convinced Avoid is the right tag.

PeeWee32 wrote:

Ok thanks. I just wonder... how can you tell which part of this road is OK to use in that case? Are there any signs telling it is OK to use it? Can someone give an example (google streetviewe maybe?)

No, there are no signs telling you this (maybe that's why most people don't know about this).

An example: The highway=track wich goes from this intersection to the northeast. It has an combined cycle- and footway sign at this intersection, but as you can see on the map it is not "strassenbegleitend" ("along the street"?). However, if you approach this intersection in reality you can't see this (except you're just comming from the north 😉 ).

Another example where one has to use the cycleway, even though it is complete nonsense: At this roundabout (driving from the south to the north) one has to take the cycleway on the left(!), continue on it to the first exit and enter the roundabout there (from Dietmar-Hopp-Strasse). Again you can't see that the cycleway isn't going to your exit, but that doesn't matter here, since you can still leave the cycleway in time.

And an third example: The Track on the west of this intersection. It isn't signed as an cycleway but we consider it so for this example (such intersections with an cycleway instead of the track exist, but I don't know exactly where). If you want to turn into the residential to the east you would be allowed to use the road. But again, you can't see this from where you can enter the cycleway (oh, and besides, that would mean the whole road would be bicycle=yes, but one would still have to take the cycleway if he want's to use it completly).

PeeWee32 wrote:

If there is a smal part of the road that can be used for a bicycle wouldn't it be better to give only this part a "bicycle=yes"?

The problem is that it's nearly impossible to notice all of them…

PeeWee32 wrote:

If there is a smal part of the road that can be used for a bicycle wouldn't it be better to give only this part a "bicycle=yes"?

Why?
If there is no cycleway (benutzungspflichtig) then you can use the road. There is no biycyle=yes necessary.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_ … strictions

PeeWee32 wrote:

Ok thanks. I just wonder... how can you tell which part of this road is OK to use in that case? Are there any signs telling it is OK to use it? Can someone give an example (google streetviewe maybe?)

If there is a smal part of the road that can be used for a bicycle wouldn't it be better to give only this part a "bicycle=yes"?

No, there are no signs. An Example are here:
http://openrouteservice.org/index.php?s … ways=false
The cycleway has no connection to the intersection from the secondary street. So you have to leave the cycleway before and turn left like cars do.

An other example is this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/d … kt.svg.png
If a cyclists want turn left, he always can choose the direct way over the road, or use the cycleway straight over the crossing and then use the other cycleway (or push the bike over the footway) if the traffic light tell green.

bicycle=yes don't work, because a cyclist can turn left to a highway=service + service=driveway (the red footway is a not segregated cycle- & footway):
http://openrouteservice.org/index.php?s … ways=false
So if you want to tag some parts with bicycle=yes, you have to tag most parts of roads!

Furthermore, the bicycle=yes is redundant, because a normal road allows to cycle.

Thanks Masimaster and Rayquaza for the examples. Althought Rayquaza's examples all seem te be tracks I still get the picture. I've aslo seen that Wolmatinger has added some FIXME's on these tracks so maybe a local mapper could fix this.

MasiMaster wrote:

An other example is this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/d … kt.svg.png
If a cyclists want turn left, he always can choose the direct way over the road, or use the cycleway straight over the crossing and then use the other cycleway (or push the bike over the footway) if the traffic light tell green.

I did not know this. This will make my cycling trips in Germany a bit faster 😉

MasiMaster wrote:

bicycle=yes don't work, because a cyclist can turn left to a highway=service + service=driveway (the red footway is a not segregated cycle- & footway):
http://openrouteservice.org/index.php?s … ways=false
So if you want to tag some parts with bicycle=yes, you have to tag most parts of roads!

Furthermore, the bicycle=yes is redundant, because a normal road allows to cycle.

I think you are right. I also think this is what Wolmatiger means. I guess I was thinking of roads next to compulsary cycleway. If those roads would get a bicycle=avoid (tag to be discussed) for those parts were a policeman could give you a fine you could add a bicycle=yes just for the parts of the road were it is OK to use a bike. You could still say it is redundant but maybe you can compare it to the next situation. In NL many cycleways are oneway and are also tagged as oneway=yes. For this reason some mappers use a oneway=no for cycleways that can be used in 2 directions. Just to make sure no one accidentely maps these as oneway. This oneway=no is also redundant but prevents athoher mappers from accedentaly mapping these as oneway. Sometimes it is just a little part of the cycleway that is 2-way but if it was mapped as oneway it would be wrong and also affect bicycle routing.

So what do you think of the next conclusion?
1. All roads with a "cycling forbidden" sign get a bicyle=no
2. All (parts) of a road next to a compulsary cycleway (blue sign) were you could get a fine by a policeman when riding a normal bicycle get a bicyle=avoid (tag to be discussed)

This would improve bicycle routing I think. What do you think? Could this work in Germany or am I fighting windmills 😉 ?

rayquaza wrote:

Routers could first try to find a route with using all of those ways and if they found a route over the street check if nearly the same route (maybe turning on the same crossing with an maximum detour of 10% and without using another road more than 20m?) is possible via a cycleway (also checking the cycleway for i.e. width=* to check if it's usable for this specific vehicle).

This would be a "non-local" part of a routers cost function and all the tagging you need for that is already there, but this is nearly impossible to implement and not a single router is doing stuff like that.

This is why I share the opinion that an extension of the tagging scheme is neccesary to allow correct routing via local cost functions.

PeeWee32 wrote:

So what do you think of the next conclusion?
1. All roads with a "cycling forbidden" sign get a bicyle=no

No extension needed here. Remind that a road with cycling not allowed does not neccesarily need bicyle=no. motorroad=yes implies bicyle=no, and check against bicyle=dismount.

2. [All (parts) of] a road next to a compulsary cycleway (blue sign) were you could get a fine by a policeman when riding a normal bicycle get a bicyle=avoid (tag to be discussed)

+1 for that

Could this work in Germany or am I fighting windmills 😉 ?

The windmills you are fighting is the "All (parts)" remark. It should be made clear that this is not a strict access rule and that it is NOT necceary to fiddle with the "edge-issues" around crossings. If a router has no other choice than routing through a 5 Meter section of bicycle=avoid than he should just do it.

abrensch wrote:

rayquaza wrote:

Routers could first try to find a route with using all of those ways and if they found a route over the street check if nearly the same route (maybe turning on the same crossing with an maximum detour of 10% and without using another road more than 20m?) is possible via a cycleway (also checking the cycleway for i.e. width=* to check if it's usable for this specific vehicle).

This would be a "non-local" part of a routers cost function and all the tagging you need for that is already there, but this is nearly impossible to implement and not a single router is doing stuff like that.

This is why I share the opinion that an extension of the tagging scheme is neccesary to allow correct routing via local cost functions.

PeeWee32 wrote:

So what do you think of the next conclusion?
1. All roads with a "cycling forbidden" sign get a bicyle=no

No extension needed here. Remind that a road with cycling not allowed does not neccesarily need bicyle=no. motorroad=yes implies bicyle=no, and check against bicyle=dismount.

Thanks. It's difficult to be clear and 100% correct. I guess this scheme could be the guide for when to add bicycle=no.

abrensch wrote:

2. [All (parts) of] a road next to a compulsary cycleway (blue sign) were you could get a fine by a policeman when riding a normal bicycle get a bicyle=avoid (tag to be discussed)

+1 for that

I'm glad you like this. I guess it would greatly improve your "routing engine" for cycling (normal bike) and give the oppertunity for routing for special bikes/ groups of race cyclists

abrensch wrote:

Could this work in Germany or am I fighting windmills 😉 ?

The windmills you are fighting is the "All (parts)" remark. It should be made clear that this is not a strict access rule and that it is NOT necceary to fiddle with the "edge-issues" around crossings. If a router has no other choice than routing through a 5 Meter section of bicycle=avoid than he should just do it.

+1 although I think some of this issues can be solved with a little "better" mapping.

It looks like response for this proposal is not overwelming. Reasons I can think of are:

1. It could be that many agree/disagree but don't say so
2. The english language of this thread keeps some away from responding/reading
3. Some don't like me as a foreigner interfering in German tagging

I thinks it's best if I try this proposal in the Dutch forum with many active cyclists. In NL it is not allowed (yet?) to cycle these roads with a group of race cyclists but... discussions about this are alive. So maybe if the law changes the proposal will get more support 😉

If someone wants to start a thread about this proposal (in german this time).... be my guest.

PeeWee32 wrote:

Althought Rayquaza's examples all seem te be tracks I still get the picture. I've also seen that Wolmatinger has added some FIXME's on these tracks so maybe a local mapper could fix this.

Only the one where I wrote so – the others are signed with a cycleway-Sign (but actually one of them is a highway=track from the other side).
@Wolmatinger: Bis auf den *=yes-Hinweis sind die fixme=* unpassend: Das eine sieht real wie ein normaler Gehsteig aus und das andere ist (iirc) (teilweise) wie eine normale Strasse (=gar nicht) ausgeschildert. I *am* a local mapper there 😉

PeeWee32 wrote:

So what do you think of the next conclusion?
1. All roads with a "cycling forbidden" sign get a bicyle=no
2. All (parts) of a road next to a compulsary cycleway (blue sign) were you could get a fine by a policeman when riding a normal bicycle get a bicyle=avoid (tag to be discussed)

This would improve bicycle routing I think. What do you think? Could this work in Germany or am I fighting windmills 😉 ?

I think 1) is common in OSM. (motorways, or barriers who you can't cycling gets a bicycle=no too)
And +1 to No. 2), including "tag to be discussed"!

Furthermore I think we have to discuss about the tags for the cycleway:
- designated: this is a tag for a way with a sign?! It tells nothing about the strict law i.e. about cycleways. So some German mapper introduce bicycle=official for the strict access.
- yes: this tag could to be used for cycleway where cycling is allowed. But the problem with tis is: many mappers tag some ways (mostly on path) with bicycle=yes, where cycling is possible. a part of this problem are the editors with the select menu... I think cycling=yes, walking=yes and riding=yes sounds better for only the possibility.

If we use designated for the strict law, we get a problem with designated for other ways which have a sign. And if we use bicycle=yes for signs which tell "cycling is allowed", there is the problem i explained at "- yes".
I think it is important if we want tag only one sign with one tag/one tag correlate to one sign, which may be helpful for OSM.

rayquaza wrote:

PeeWee32 wrote:

Althought Rayquaza's examples all seem te be tracks I still get the picture. I've also seen that Wolmatinger has added some FIXME's on these tracks so maybe a local mapper could fix this.

Only the one where I wrote so – the others are signed with a cycleway-Sign (but actually one of them is a highway=track from the other side).
I *am* a local mapper there 😉

OK thanks.
The first example is tagged as a highway = track. (clicking way will give OSM tags). But according to this scheme (though still proposal) would not requiere tags like foot=yes, bicycle=yes. In that way I can understand Wolmatigers remark. From the taggings I would not have guessed it was a compulsary cycleway. Thats the reason Mapnik renders it as a track (grade1) and not a cycleway.

You are right about the second example. It is not a track but a highway= footway. As you can see Mapnik does not render these as a cycleway but as a footway. I thought combined cycleway/ footway that are tagged as a highway=footway would get a bicycle=designated in Germany. This one has a "bicycle=official". I guess that is why Mapnik does not render this as cycleway but as footway.

MasiMaster wrote:

PeeWee32 wrote:

So what do you think of the next conclusion?
1. All roads with a "cycling forbidden" sign get a bicyle=no
2. All (parts) of a road next to a compulsary cycleway (blue sign) were you could get a fine by a policeman when riding a normal bicycle get a bicyle=avoid (tag to be discussed)

This would improve bicycle routing I think. What do you think? Could this work in Germany or am I fighting windmills 😉 ?

I think 1) is common in OSM. (motorways, or barriers who you can't cycling gets a bicycle=no too)
And +1 to No. 2), including "tag to be discussed"!

Furthermore I think we have to discuss about the tags for the cycleway:
- designated: this is a tag for a way with a sign?! It tells nothing about the strict law i.e. about cycleways. So some German mapper introduce bicycle=official for the strict access.
- yes: this tag could to be used for cycleway where cycling is allowed. But the problem with tis is: many mappers tag some ways (mostly on path) with bicycle=yes, where cycling is possible. a part of this problem are the editors with the select menu... I think cycling=yes, walking=yes and riding=yes sounds better for only the possibility.

If we use designated for the strict law, we get a problem with designated for other ways which have a sign. And if we use bicycle=yes for signs which tell "cycling is allowed", there is the problem i explained at "- yes".
I think it is important if we want tag only one sign with one tag/one tag correlate to one sign, which may be helpful for OSM.

Masimaster... we are brothers in arms 😉. I aggree with what you say on both the issues of ways where cycling is (most of the time) forbidden and on tagging of cycleways. I also think it is important to keep these 2 issues apart not make discussions more complicated then it already is.

I have started a thread about the type1 and type2 roads where cycling is (most of the time) forbidden. A google translate version (NL>DE) is here but I do not know if this makes any sense so do not believe every word you read 😉

Long story short. I think most understand that there is a need for a new tag in Gemany (edit: not only Germany ofcourse) to keep these 2 ways apart which would help routing for cyclist. In NL there is not such a great need because it is costum to also tag type2 roads with a bicycle=no. This is the reason why routing for normal bikes in NL works better then in DE. But if in other countries (eg Germany) this new tag would be accepted and commenly used I am sure more countries (edit: including NL) will follow. Also routers/renderers would follow.

I've been thinking about the name for this tag. What about "bicycle=no_unless" . The "unless" indicates that there are exceptions. These exceptions vary from country to country but I am sure routers/renderers can deal with this. Still a lot better then tags like "bicycle_longer_then_x_wider_then_y =yes" or "group_of_cyclist_more_then_x_bicycles=yes" 😉

PeeWee32 wrote:

The first example is tagged as a highway = track. (clicking way will give OSM tags). But according to this scheme (though still proposal) would not requiere tags like foot=yes, bicycle=yes. In that way I can understand Wolmatigers remark. From the taggings I would not have guessed it was a compulsary cycleway. Thats the reason Mapnik renders it as a track (grade1) and not a cycleway.

That's the point: It is signed with a cycleway-Sign but since it leads away from the road it isn't compulsory (but you can't see this from where you would have to change to it). If you approach this intersection from this "Cycleway" you only see a Cycleway-End-Sign, no Cycleway-Begin-Sign.

PeeWee32 wrote:

You are right about the second example. It is not a track but a highway= footway. As you can see Mapnik does not render these as a cycleway but as a footway. I thought combined cycleway/ footway that are tagged as a highway=footway would get a bicycle=designated in Germany. This one has a "bicycle=official". I guess that is why Mapnik does not render this as cycleway but as footway.

As I wrote above in german it actually looks like a normal sidewalk, so the rendering isn't that wrong. I'm not sure where the bicycle=official comes from, maybe I found that somewhere in the Wiki or on an other Way.

About what Google Translate produced with the NL-Thread: It's hardly readable. But here a few annotations:

• Reply 4: Isn't exactly that the advantage of OSM? That we also have data for minorities? Remember: Only a few Percent of our potential users would use things like wheelchair=* (which I find totaly useless, but that's another topic).
• Reply 9: If I understood correctly ("You should earn a tenth of your teachers"?) I have to aggree with that.
• Reply 10: It is controversial if you would be allowed to use the road if you think the cycleway is too bad. If a policeman stops you using the road you're "guilty" (even if there's a cycleway-damage-sign) and if something happens because you used the cycleway you're "guilty" too…
And i.e. parking cars are usualy not signed, but they still allow you to use the road between two entrys to the cycleway (which often means between at least two intersections).

rayquaza wrote:

That's the point: It is signed with a cycleway-Sign but since it leads away from the road it isn't compulsory (but you can't see this from where you would have to change to it). If you approach this intersection from this "Cycleway" you only see a Cycleway-End-Sign, no Cycleway-Begin-Sign.

Slacknas of the responsible adminstration. A problem in Germany.

e.g.
- sign 240 instead of sign 250 + Rad frei or sign 260
- sign 239 is replaced through sign 254
- missing bicycle=yes sign on ways with sign 250 + vehicle/access=destination/agriculture which are signed as bicycle-route
...

PeeWee32 wrote:

I have started a thread about the type1 and type2 roads where cycling is (most of the time) forbidden. A google translate version (NL>DE) is here but I do not know if this makes any sense so do not believe every word you read 😉

I think we can understand the translation (the translation is so bad, because it works: NL -> EN -> DE. often it makes more sense, read the english translation, even you cant understand each fourth word 🙂 )

PeeWee32 wrote:

Long story short. I think most understand that there is a need for a new tag in Gemany (edit: not only Germany ofcourse) to keep these 2 ways apart which would help routing for cyclist. In NL there is not such a great need because it is costum to also tag type2 roads with a bicycle=no. This is the reason why routing for normal bikes in NL works better then in DE. But if in other countries (eg Germany) this new tag would be accepted and commenly used I am sure more countries (edit: including NL) will follow. Also routers/renderers would follow.

I think the bicycle=no works for NL, because there are very few cycleways (and most >90% ?? are good), so there is no reason to cycling on the road.
In DE most cycleways (>80%) are very bad and often car-drivers use them for parking and pedestrian for walking without looking for (bicycle-)traffic. So often it is allowed to cycle on the road.

The example with the green and red arrows: in Germany you may cross the crossing over the road, because there is no parallel cycleway (in a 5m distance). And because it is not possible to sort you on the right lane for cycling straight, it is allowed to switch to the road a intersection before. (It only works, if you know the crossing.)

In Austria riders with a racing bike on a training-tour, they are allowed to drive on the road! only a "bicycle=no-sign" can stop them (as well as motorway etc.)

PeeWee32 wrote:

I've been thinking about the name for this tag. What about "bicycle=no_unless" . The "unless" indicates that there are exceptions. These exceptions vary from country to country but I am sure routers/renderers can deal with this. Still a lot better then tags like "bicycle_longer_then_x_wider_then_y =yes" or "group_of_cyclist_more_then_x_bicycles=yes" 😉

I'm not really happy with no_unless, because the double negation (no & un) and the two words. But i don't have a better idea.

Wolmatinger wrote:

rayquaza wrote:

That's the point: It is signed with a cycleway-Sign but since it leads away from the road it isn't compulsory (but you can't see this from where you would have to change to it). If you approach this intersection from this "Cycleway" you only see a Cycleway-End-Sign, no Cycleway-Begin-Sign.

Slacknas of the responsible adminstration. A problem in Germany.

e.g.
- sign 240 instead of sign 250 + Rad frei or sign 260
- sign 239 is replaced through sign 254
- missing bicycle=yes sign on ways with sign 250 + vehicle/access=destination/agriculture which are signed as bicycle-route
...

I completely agree! The administration in Germany do nothing for cyclists! Also the ways with are not parallel to the road, here the official bicycle sign are wrong. (I think this is because we don't have a no sign like in france: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/26 … radweg.png or the "fietspad-sign" in NL). But this is a problem in Germany and out of OSM.

rayquaza wrote:

That's the point: It is signed with a cycleway-Sign but since it leads away from the road it isn't compulsory (but you can't see this from where you would have to change to it). If you approach this intersection from this "Cycleway" you only see a Cycleway-End-Sign, no Cycleway-Begin-Sign.

Her I go again. When I wrote "compulsary cycleway" I meant a cycleway with a bleu sign/bicycle. In NL is it common to call these compulsary but in DE it is not always so.. Communication.... difficult as always 😉

rayquaza wrote:

Reply 9: If I understood correctly ("You should earn a tenth of your teachers"?) I have to aggree with that.

correct.. Danke 😉

rayquaza wrote:

Reply 10: It is controversial if you would be allowed to use the road if you think the cycleway is too bad. If a policeman stops you using the road you're "guilty" (even if there's a cycleway-damage-sign) and if something happens because you used the cycleway you're "guilty" too…
And i.e. parking cars are usualy not signed, but they still allow you to use the road between two entrys to the cycleway (which often means between at least two intersections)

I don't know if I understand correctly but in NL it is not allowed to park a car on a cycleway so here's an other difference between the 2 countries.

MasiMaster wrote:

In Austria riders with a racing bike on a training-tour, they are allowed to drive on the road! only a "bicycle=no-sign" can stop them (as well as motorway etc.)

I understand this also goes for some "Bundesländer". I heard from a Dutchman living close to the Niedersachsen/Holland border that is is also allowed there.

MasiMaster wrote:

I'm not really happy with no_unless, because the double negation (no & un) and the two words. But i don't have a better idea.

On the Dutch forum Ligfietser came up with the "bicycle=use_cycleway" . The best so far. It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a tag to discribe all the exceptions so this one seems pretty good to me.

PeeWee32 wrote:

I don't know if I understand correctly but in NL it is not allowed to park a car on a cycleway so here's an other difference between the 2 countries.

In DE it's also not allowed.

PeeWee32 wrote:

rayquaza wrote:

Reply 10: And i.e. parking cars are usualy not signed, but they still allow you to use the road between two entrys to the cycleway (which often means between at least two intersections)

I don't know if I understand correctly but in NL it is not allowed to park a car on a cycleway so here's an other difference between the 2 countries.

It is also prohibited in germany, but still cycleways get "unusable" this way…

MasiMaster wrote:

In Austria riders with a racing bike on a training-tour, they are allowed to drive on the road!

This might be allowed in germany, but I'm not sure about this (here we have one of those "and maybe even more exceptions"). If so it is likely the same for whole germany.

OT: A "Bundesland" is called "federal state" in english 😉

PeeWee32 wrote:

MasiMaster wrote:

In Austria riders with a racing bike on a training-tour, they are allowed to drive on the road! only a "bicycle=no-sign" can stop them (as well as motorway etc.)

I understand this also goes for some "Bundesländer". I heard from a Dutchman living close to the Niedersachsen/Holland border that is is also allowed there.

I think all no Bundesland has special rights, so it should belong to the whole country. I can't find any right that tell that racing-cyclists may ignore the cycleways in germany.

PeeWee32 wrote:

MasiMaster wrote:

I'm not really happy with no_unless, because the double negation (no & un) and the two words. But i don't have a better idea.

On the Dutch forum Ligfietser came up with the "bicycle=use_cycleway" . The best so far. It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a tag to discribe all the exceptions so this one seems pretty good to me.

+1 "bicycle=use_cycleway" is the best so far!

But i think we don't need describe all exceptions in the tag/tagging. It should be enough to explain it for different countries here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_ … strictions

Yesterday I encountered a routing glitch on a long-distance trip using BRouter/fastbike.

A section on B8 in Bad Camberg (Germany) is tagged as a combination not accepted by brouter/fastbike:

- For the road: highway=primary, bicycle=no
- For both cycleways: highway=path, oneway=yes, bicycle=desiganted, foot=designated, segregated=yes

so I got a painful detour up the hill.

Since tagging for the router is evil and because I need to get brouter to work on the existing map material, I now changed the fastbike-profile to accept that situation, I did not change the map.

But the question is: is the bicycle=use_cycleway proposal in a state that it would be allowed to adapt the tagging? And what about the oneways on the cýcleways ?

Hi,
wieso geht BRouter denn nicht über die Radwege?

oneway: Ja, das sollte für Radler natürlich beachtet werden.

Zum proposal: Das wurde leider abgelehnt.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Prop … e_cycleway

Chris

The proposal is indeed rejected but we're working on a new version. That may take some weeks (i hope). Although I prefer an accepted wiki page nobody will forbid you to use the tag. In Bremen there are many tagged. This may be a nice test area for your router. In the new version of the proposal we want to use some routing examples. Maybe you can help us making clear what the advantage for routing can be.

chris66 wrote:

Hi,
wieso geht BRouter denn nicht über die Radwege?

Es betraf nur das 'fastbike' profile, und da hatte ich gesagt, ein "ungraded path" wird nicht akzeptiert, weil das im Zweifel auch ein Matchweg ist. Jetzt taggen die Mapper aber oft für kombinierte Rad/Fusswege highway=path, weil es ja weder 'cycleway' noch 'footway' ist. Ich hab's jetzt so geändert, dass das 'bicycle=designated' den Weg dann doch wieder qualifiziert.

Schwierig wird das für die Zweiräder, die die Radwege nicht benutzen dürfen. Beim Moped-Profil verzichte ich ganz auf die bike-access tags und arbeite nur mit den impliziten Berechtigungen. Ob das für S-Pedelecs so auch funktioniert weiss ich nicht. Heisst ja, dass Fahrrad-Verbotsschilder ignoriert werden, nur das Autostrassen-Schild (motorroad=yes) zählt.