|
someone changed a part of a cycle and walk way to a cycle path, I am curious too why someone would do that, and what should be used, the path is local to me, and I have ridden it, and there are signs, showing that it is a cycle and walk way. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/83214437#map=18/59.59071/11.18932 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/59.59073/11.18997 my flickr album of the path: https://flic.kr/s/aHsmafv3aH https://www.trailforks.com/trails/sentrum-trippestad/photos/?viewMode=map the user did not change not change whole path, just the top part, I don't know why. the path is designated for cyclist and pedestrians. I have asked the user, but no reply so far. is there something I am missing, why it would need to be changed? or is the user just doing a hones mistake? |
|
In some (most?) of the world, it's perfectly normal to walk on a cycle path. The "highway=cycleway" tag was originally envisaged (in the ancient history of OSM, before individual access tags like "foot" and "bicycle" were invented) as "something that is designed for people to be able to cycle on", irrespective of what else they might also be allowed to do on there. The cycleway wiki page has more information on that. Unfortunately that page suffers from editors assuming that their part of the world is typical of the rest of it (I'm not having a go at any particular group of OSMers by that statement - we're all guilty sometimes). What I'll always try and do is to add "foot" and "bicycle" (and other) tags to make clear what the legal situation is, and I'd encourage other people to do the same. This isn't the only example of "the same thing being tagged differently by different groups of mappers in OSM", so I don't think what the person is doing is necessarily even a mistake, never mind an "honest" one. What I would however suggest is that people try and "fit in" their tagging with what is common locally, and if most people in that area of Norway wouldn't tag this cycleway as a "highway=cycleway" then I'd try and fit in with their tagging. |
|
I don't know why that mapper only did a portion of your highway but I just checked it using Potlatch and it uses the term "Cycle Path" which suggests to me that the tagging will be that of a path. However, the actual tags that have been applied seem correct to me. Using JOSM now, I find highway=cycleway foot=designated bicycle=designated segregated=no oneway=no Before that, the tagging was less specific; foot=yes and bicycle=yes, meaning that either use is okay. Even before that, you had tagged the path with foot=no. Apparently, there's some difference of opinion about that. But the tagging seems fine as is. Aside: Potlatch's use of the term "Cycle Path" is very misleading. I started out using it but moved to JOSM long ago. I don't know why anyone still uses Potlatch. Hope this helps. I haven't heard of Potlatch before. I still use the website, I tried JOSM briefly, but it has a steep learning curve. I checked it it is tagged as foot=designated bicycle=designated which it was before the user separated the path and tagged that section differently. all the path that were incorrectly tagged, I changed to cycle and walk way, according to the signage. but it seems like the user did a honest mistake.
(02 May '20, 03:06)
mtbboy1993
when it comes to the terms, I have have worked a lot on translating OSM, via transifex, so I hope that will help Norwegian users understand the differences.
(02 May '20, 03:14)
mtbboy1993
I don't remember evry change I did, but I was done with working on that path, everything around it and the path was tweaked, and corrected, selected, and all that.
(02 May '20, 03:16)
mtbboy1993
2
Are we really talking about Potlatch or Potlatch2? :-P The original Potlatch still gets used for un-deleting things on occasion. I quite liked Potlatch 2, moved to JOSM years ago but it's still a decent chunk of my edits. I hope it survives the demise of flash.
(02 May '20, 10:54)
InsertUser
1
Potlatch 2 I dislike it but that's just me. The only reason I commented is because both the OP and Potlatch 2 refer to the way in question as a "Cycle Path" and IMHO, that's misleading. No biggie. If it works for you and you have no concerns about Flash, no problem.
(02 May '20, 11:07)
AlaskaDave
To be fair, based on the pictures, that way would be described in British English as a "cycle path".
(02 May '20, 12:52)
SomeoneElse ♦
My point is that Potlatch_2 with its "Cycle Path" description implies that the way is a "path" when it might not be, as in this case. The tag highway=path is so problematic and so widely used and misused, I dislike seeing the word in such a role.
(02 May '20, 14:08)
AlaskaDave
showing 5 of 7
show 2 more comments
|
I have similar problem. There is a regional multi use trail that I corrected to cycle and foot path to hopefully satisfy the cyclists & hikers. But someone has set them to path making them visually like any path. Will try setting it as a relation to highlight. (Douglas County Regional E/W Trail)
Hi GPS_dr. Information put on a way usually imply access rights used for routing. Information on relations is usually not used by routers. If you need any aid in this situation please post a new question.