Bicycle overlay, selecting "it's a footway" does not set the tag

[RubenKelevra]

How to Reproduce

• Enable the bicycle overlay
• Tap on a highway=path on the map
• Select the footway symbol "not designated for cyclists (cycling may still be allowed)":

• store it
• Select the same path again
• Observe that "path or trail" is selected again, not the footway

Expected Behavior
If I select that it's a footway, it should be stored and reflected when I select it again.

What is stored in the database?

Actually SC only sets the check date for the cycling when I do that, which is odd, because I don't actually confirm or deny doing that, that cycling is possible.

Versions affected
v57.2

[westnordost]

Oh no, this definitely looks like a bug!

[westnordost]

Hmm, the problem is that the first two choices overlap. A path is also not designated for cyclists. I guess the second option should be treated as primarily a footway, even though it doesn't say it explicitly, the icon looks like it.

[RubenKelevra]

Hmm, the problem is that the first two choices overlap. A path is also not designated for cyclists. I guess the second option should be treated as primarily a footway, even though it doesn't say it explicitly, the icon looks like it.

Yeah, that was my expectation, that StreetComplete would tag highway=footway there.

While there's an overlap I don't think a path is a footway and the other way around.

Footway is designed and build for pedestrians while a path was created by just walking there, without explicit planning.

[westnordost]

What to interpret highway = path + foot = no, though? (On parsing, this is coerced to bicycle=yes + foot=no)

I.e. an oddly tagged path not designated for cyclists but definitely not a footway.

Or also highway = footway + foot = no but this is, uhm...

[westnordost]

There are

• 18099 highway = path + foot = no
• 721 highway = footway + foot = no

So at least the first combination is tagged sometimes. Point being, such ways can hardly be called "footways not designated for cyclists" - they don't seem to be footways at all.

[RubenKelevra]

Well not sure about designated, but definitely not allowed for waking there then.

I guess if there's a mountain bike trail one could tag them as highway=path with foot=no if foot traffic is legally not allowed there.

highway=footway would be wrong tho, and likely be actually a highway=cycleway instead.

Also combinations like highway=path, surface=paving_stones would be weird as paths are not considered to be created by construction.

But some newer mappers seem to disagree with this destinction, for whatever reason. I don't really get the argument as the whole point of having two different types of highway classes was to tag how they are created.

Same goes for the destinction between paths and tracks. We wouldn't need two classes if we would instead just map the width or if there are tractors allowed on the way. But they were created to distinguish between different types of appearance, creation and common usage.

[RubenKelevra]

There are

• 18099 highway = path + foot = no
• 721 highway = footway + foot = no

So at least the first combination is tagged sometimes. Point being, such ways can hardly be called "footways not designated for cyclists" - they don't seem to be footways at all.

Sure. But I think it's fair to assume that foot=no means actually that public access is now allowed.

Something like access=private or access=permit would be correct there, but many countries use a red circle with a pedestrian inside to show "no access" which can lead to these wrong tags.

[westnordost]

Okay, my point is that the second option could not be renamed to "footways not designated for cyclists" because parsing highway = path + foot = no results in this option.

[westnordost]

I didn't mention access. access is not parsed. And I really don't want to make it even more complex also parsing surface and stuff.

[westnordost]

Hm, or highway = path + foot = no could be parsed as "Path or Trail" instead.

[westnordost]

Anyway, there are two ways how to solve this particular issue:

1. Remove both the "Path or trail" and "Shared-use path" option, i.e. anything that is not a segregated foot+cycleway or exclusive cycleway would be "non-designated". Why both? Because while I didn't find a ticket or discussion why I added the "path or trail" option later, I do vaguely remember it should prevent mistagging "just some paths or trails e.g. on the countryside" to "shared-use paths" - both have "path" in the name and the difference between the two can often be just signage and paving or something. On the other hand, the tagging difference is potentially very big: highway=path vs highway=footway + bicycle=designated+ segregated=no.

2. Or change highway = path + foot = no to be parsed as "Path or Trail" to make the "non-designated" specific to footways and treat the "non-designated" option also like the user selected that it is primarily a footway

It surely would probably be less confusing for users to have less choices, but this somewhat collides with the colorful world of OSM foot+bicycle tagging, so a bit of complexity I fear must be added for the data recorded to be any useful.

As I wrote, adding an option that bicycles are allowed on sidewalk explicitly is another issue.

[wielandb]

We do this on many occasions, like tagging "there's no cycle lane on this road". Sidewalks in Germany have usually no signs saying "hey this is a side walk" and thus given your argument we would need to say "oh I don't have an idea if there's a cycle way or not here, as there's no sign".

I think it's helpful to reiterate that "no expert knowledge" really means no knowledge about anything is required apart from what is visible on-the-ground.

A sidewalk is something physically present I don't need any expert knowledge (e.g. legal knowledge) to know that this is a sidewalk. It's there. I can see it. So in SC, I record the physical presence of a sidewalk. Who is allowed to use it is something I cannot know without legal knowledge (wich, I agree, everyone participating in traffic should have, but most don't), but as it is nothing visible on-the-ground, we don't record it in SC.

[RubenKelevra]

Option one does not work.

We got two different types of ways which bikes and cyclists can use in Germany:

If the way were tagging is a sidewalk mapped separately next to a road we run into the issue, that we can't tag it in streetcomplete. Reason for this is, that both are explicit cycle ways which need to be used by cyclists instead of the road.

A simple "that's a footway and we got no idea if it's a cycle way" does not work here, as its a mandatory cycle way.

Instead it would lead to many wrongly tagged ways having segregation when they don't have one.

At least for me it's clear what a shared path is supposed to mean, I don't think it would be confused with a path which cyclists can't use.

I think the best option would be to remove the second option with the footway symbol and place a "no cycling allowed" or something like this there.

This would complete the available options.

The first one is fine as it is. As paths and tracks are usually are considered to be allowing cyclists.

If not the user can select "cyclist not allowed" for them, to add bicycle=no.

[westnordost]

Alright, option two then.

[wielandb]

Alright, option two then.

I'll try to incorporate that into #5575. Indeed, theese overlaping (but alledgedly correct) parsings are causing me quite some headache in that PR. 😵‍💫

[westnordost]

Tell me about it 🤯 ... my sketch from an hour ago...

[westnordost]

On the upside, if you finish this PR and it is merged, you don't need to worry about it anymore because it becomes my responsibility, so, go go go 😅

[RubenKelevra]

We do this on many occasions, like tagging "there's no cycle lane on this road". Sidewalks in Germany have usually no signs saying "hey this is a side walk" and thus given your argument we would need to say "oh I don't have an idea if there's a cycle way or not here, as there's no sign".

I think it's helpful to reiterate that "no expert knowledge" really means no knowledge about anything is required apart from what is visible on-the-ground.

A sidewalk is something physically present I don't need any expert knowledge (e.g. legal knowledge) to know that this is a sidewalk. It's there. I can see it. So in SC, I record the physical presence of a sidewalk. Who is allowed to use it is something I cannot know without legal knowledge (wich, I agree, everyone participating in traffic should have, but most don't), but as it is nothing visible on-the-ground, we don't record it in SC.

We my point was: If I can see a sidewalk and map it as sidewalk I can map any other way as such as well.

If there's a sign saying it is allowing bicycles, I can map it as "there are bicycles allowed", if not you would answer: "none" cycleway existing, not "there's no sign - I don't know":

So the bicycle quest already requires this "expert knowledge" by asking the users to make a deliberate choice by knowing sidewalks don't allow bicycles by default.

Why can't we apply the same for other ways? 🤔

[westnordost]

I'd blame the OSM tagging schema and practice to put cycleways and footways onto the same way instead of separating it into two ways, …… if this method of tagging would not also make sense in cases where e.g. bicycle and pedestrian traffic indeed share the space - implicitly or explicitly.
The difference with cycleways mapped on road-ways is that we can already assume with 100% certainty that it is "straßenbegleitendend", i.e. no undefined "paths or trails".

Basically, the "not designated" option is the "no cycleway here" option. Could still be tagged with bicycle=yes in the wild, e.g. in Poland, all sidewalks and footways in general that are broader than a certain width may by law be used by cyclists.

[matkoniecz]

e.g. in Poland, all sidewalks and footways in general that are broader than a certain width may by law be used by cyclists.

for sidewalks also allowed road speed needs to be >50 km/h, for footways it kind of depends and there is even more complexity

[westnordost]

Mh, restrictive. Probably effectively ends up to being similar to the German situation, only that your road authority saves on some signage on the countryside.

[matkoniecz]

you have also added layer of police not really enforcing it anyway (unless they have demand to catch specific number of law breakers)