Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #4634
    Maki
    Participant

    Hi Christian,

    I downloaded the latest Italy.map (4-4-2015) and I’m seeing bogus cycle networks everywhere.
    Every path that has “bicycle=yes” is now tagged as “network=hcw” but according to the tag-mapping comment <!–Propritary Tag for highway=cycleway/bicycle=designated to prevent overlapping–> “hcw” should only tag “bicycle=designated” which is very different. I see that you changed something in this area in the recent changelog. Basically now every path that has “bicycle=yes” will look as a cycle way.

    For now I’m removing “hcw” from my theme, but I think this is confusing anyway, bicycle=yes and bicycle=designated should not be merged as they serve different purposes.

    Best regards,
    Maki.

    #4635
    ChristianK
    Keymaster

    Hi Maki,

    This was done in December 2014:

    <translation>
    		<name>unify cycleways to network=hcw (previously done by perl a script) 112014 kech61</name>
    		<description>unify cycleways to network=hcw (previously done by perl a script) 112014 kech61</description>
    		<match mode="and" type="way">
    			<tag k="highway" v="footway|path"/>
    			<tag k="bicycle" v="yes"/>
    		</match>
    		<notag k="sac_scale" v=".*"/>
    		<output>
    			<copy-all/>
    			<tag k="network" v="hcw"/>
    		</output>
    </translation>

    It only effects footways+paths with bicycle=yes and without a sac_scale tag
    Well, I know that a dedicated cycleway is different to a bicycle=yes – the change was done after discussion and I know that its not perfect.
    …hmmm….

    Best regards
    Christian

    #4639
    Tobias
    Keymaster

    Hi Maki,
    all network=hcw were “bogus cycle networks” from the beginning ;-)
    I started to not use hcw anymore but bicycle=bic_yes/bic_permissive/bic_no, and not render it like a network but like a highway=cycleway.
    One can argue to have bicycle=bic_designated separated from bic_yes, but in a bike theme it makes sense to have them both rendered similar – as it doesn’t really matter if it is allowed to ride a bike on this path or if it has a signpost for that, in the end I just want to know if I can.
    Best regards,
    Tobias

    Developer of Elevate mapstyle

    #4644
    Maki
    Participant

    Yeah, sorry, in winter I use raster maps and I didn’t keep in touch…

    The problem is that there are vast areas where mapping is still largely incomplete. So mountain paths that have been mapped by bikers may have the (useless) bicycle=yes but no sac scale. Actually in NW Italy I have found several of them. In Elevate 3 (cycle style) they are rendered as double line, and look like a road even if they are paths. Look at this one, for example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230815724 I apologize with the world for not having completed its tagging yet, but I know it very well and I can say you it is a T2 path with some parts where you have to carry the bike and some others with very poor trail visibility. But from the map looks like a cycleway connecting two tracks.

    The difference from “designated” and “yes” is not the signpost. “Designated” means the road/path is made explicitly for bicycles, “yes” just means you are legally allowed to bike there, which doesn’t mean it is actually ridable. Part of the problem is in OSM tagging that doesn’t make a clear distinction between MTB and road cycling, but still… it is a problem.

    If I had to merge values I’d rather merge “permissive” and “yes” because on a practical side for the average user there is no difference.

    Maki

    #4646
    Tobias
    Keymaster

    I see your problem, and as I said I have no problem with separating “designated” from “yes”.

    I know many cycleways which have a highway=path and bicycle=yes (which should better have a bicycle=designated or official or highway=cycleway). I’d like to see those rendered like every other cycleway. Most of those I encountered are actually paved (and signposted).

    The blue borders of cycleways in Elevate 3 only mean that cycling is legally allowed here, so bicycle=yes is not useless as not in every country a path has bicycle=yes as default, e.g. Austria: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Austria.

    You missed probably that I also included surface information, as the blue borders (means bicycle=yes/designated etc.) only say something about legal access and not about suitability. The track you mentionend is not rendered like a road, nor like a paved cycleway: If no surface is given, the inner line is dashed like a path (see map key, road surfaces), if it has surface information, it is rendered accordingly.

    The difference from “designated” and “yes” is not the signpost. “Designated” means the road/path is made explicitly for bicycles, “yes” just means you are legally allowed to bike there, which doesn’t mean it is actually ridable.

    I know that, but (in theory) even a designated doesn’t say anything about that it’s ridable, too ;-). That’s why surface, mtb:scale etc. are more important than access for that.

    If I had to merge values I’d rather merge “permissive” and “yes” because on a practical side for the average user there is no difference.

    Legally permissive is something which can change without notice, yes and designated not. But you’re right, for practical usage this doesn’t matter much, as well as the difference between yes and designated (at least to me).
    Best regards,
    Tobias

    Developer of Elevate mapstyle

    #4648
    Maki
    Participant

    I can’t follow you, Tobias. The way I linked is a rough path, not a track, most people would avoid it even with a MTB. But it is rendered as double line, which is the typical rendering for roads/tracks, exactly like the first example in the “Road surfaces” section and exactly like this one https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/286824884 which is a real cycleway. Even with the map key I’d have real troubles to identify it as a path.

    If you follow the border between Italy and France (on the Italian side) starting from the Monviso towards south you’ll find a lot of similar situations. They are basically all paths, and demanding ones too (mtb scale 3 or 4).

    The cycleways you mention are simply incorrectly tagged, they have to be “designated”. The “yes” value is meant to override a default access value of “no”. In Italy this stuff is regulated on a regional basis, so you can’t have a national default and some people feel appropriate to specify it anyway and strictly speaking it isn’t wrong (i.e. I think it is superfluous, but I’d feel uncomfortable removing the tag).

    Maki

    #4649
    ChristianK
    Keymaster

    Hi Maki,

    I changed the rules for highway=hcw:

    <translation>
    		<name>unify cycleways to network=hcw (previously done by perl a script) 112014 kech61</name>
    		<description>unify cycleways to network=hcw (previously done by perl a script) 112014 kech61</description>
    		<match mode="and" type="way">
    			<tag k="highway" v="footway|path"/>
    			<tag k="bicycle" v="yes"/>
    		</match>
    		<notag k="sac_scale" v=".*"/>
    		<notag k="mtb_scale" v=".*"/>
    		<notag k="mtb_scale_uphill" v=".*"/>
    		<notag k="trail_visibility" v="intermediate|bad|horrible|no" />
    		<notag k="surface" v="bad|raw|ground|dirt|grass|sand|wood|earth|mud|clay|winter|ice|snow" />
    		<output>
    			<copy-all/>
    			<tag k="network" v="hcw"/>
    		</output>
    	</translation>

    This would sove the problem for paths with mtb.scale, rought surfaace and bad visibility as far as its mapped
    So if a path is correct mapped with mtb:scale it will loose its “hcw”

    Basicly in urban areas the network=hcw works very well, in Mountains … well …
    Maki: If you hve additional tags that would exclude tagging of network=hcm please tell me.

    #4651
    ChristianK
    Keymaster

    https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230815724 I apologize with the world for not having completed its tagging yet, but I know it very well and I can say you it is a T2 path

    I added the sac:scale=T2 to this path.
    It took 2 Minutes, next time the path will be rendered wihout hcw – done.

    The art of making maps is to eliminate silly tagging and a bicycle=yes on a sac:scale=T2 IS silly.
    So please Maki: if you find such taggings please add the approbriate mtb or sac scales and everything is fine with the hcw (network=hcw will stay in andromaps_cycle theme)
    Or, as said please provide me with the tags that would eliminate bicycle=yes and I will add them to transform rule for hcw.

    #4652
    ChristianK
    Keymaster

    The “yes” value is meant to override a default access value of “no”. In Italy this stuff is regulated on a regional basis, so you can’t have a national default and some people feel appropriate to specify it anyway and strictly speaking it isn’t wrong

    I’m sorry Maki but tagging “yes” only to override “no” is completely silly and it would mean that a path/highway/footway should be tagged with all other yes-values (there are al lot of yes/no tags) to override the no values.

    Anyway, we all have to live with these …well … regional features.

    So again, please add the approbriate tags (mtb,sac,visibility,surface) and hcw will be fine AND all of us will have correct mtb_tags.

    As for bicycle=yes: I would remove it from hcw asap but in most region its used to tag ways that are not dedicated cycleways but mainly used as cycleways and dedicated cycleways that are used by pedestrians too. So here the bicycle=yes works fine.

    #4653
    Tobias
    Keymaster

    Christian, it would probably make sense to also change tag-mapping for the foot/bicycle access tags:
    [crayon]






    [/crayon]

    I can’t follow you, Tobias. The way I linked is a rough path, not a track, most people would avoid it even with a MTB. But it is rendered as double line, which is the typical rendering for roads/tracks, exactly like the first example in the “Road surfaces” section and exactly like this one https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/286824884 which is a real cycleway. Even with the map key I’d have real troubles to identify it as a path.

    Hm, so you say that the rendering suggests a certain kind of quality of the path (which I didn’t intend); maybe I should find a different rendering for path with bicycle and no surface information. That’s pretty hard, as normally those paths are paved, even cycleways, but as you demonstrated can be something totally different. Using a brown shade would mean suggesting that they are unpaved (most of the times not true)… I’ll have a look.

    The big problem is that path is a very general tag and not only means narrow, bumpy footpaths in the mountains: “highway=path is a generic path, either multi-use or unspecified usage, open to all non-motorized vehicles. The path may have any type of surface.” It’s a very fuzzy tag with lots of controversial usage/interpretations:
    http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy
    http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path
    etc.

    I think it’s used on so many different kind of ways that it’s pretty useless without additional tags, and bicycle=* is one of them. In its original proposal path was meant to replace cycleway (with bicycle=designated) and footway, and a lot of mappers are handling it like that. Of course it’s better to use designated/official (if this is true), but it’s not automatically wrong to have bicycle=yes on a path, for example with foot=designated it often makes sense. So a highway=path with bicycle=yes/designated/offical is quite often intended to be the same as a highway=cycleway, and that’s why I like to render it similar.
    As Christian said this works better for urban areas, just have a look at this:
    http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/99b
    To render all those to look like a bumpy mountain paths wouldn’t make sense to me.

    The cycleways you mention are simply incorrectly tagged, they have to be “designated”. The “yes” value is meant to override a default access value of “no”. In Italy this stuff is regulated on a regional basis, so you can’t have a national default and some people feel appropriate to specify it anyway and strictly speaking it isn’t wrong (i.e. I think it is superfluous, but I’d feel uncomfortable removing the tag).

    That’s exactly why I think it’s important to show bicycle=yes, especially for those paths – if it’s not clear if a path is allowed for cycling, it should be shown in the map if it is allowed (and if not).

    Best regards,
    Tobias

    Developer of Elevate mapstyle

    #4654
    ChristianK
    Keymaster

    Christian, it would probably make sense to also change tag-mapping for the foot/bicycle access tags:

    OK, I will do so.
    However, the May-Update is already on the server.

    #4661
    ChristianK
    Keymaster

    After taking a brief look at the overpass-turbo it seems that 90% of the paths in question are tagged with the approbriate tags like
    – surface
    – visibility
    – mtb:scale
    – sac_scale
    aso
    So they will be filtered out from hcw correctly by the modified tag-transform rules.

    I will update the maps again – @Maki please take a look at the map in 2 or 3 Days -it should look much better than right now.

    Thanks for Bug-Report, Christian
    …its all work in progress ;-)

    #4667
    ChristianK
    Keymaster

    Hi Maki,

    I made a map of the area round Cuneo with the new Rules and it looks realy fine using the usual andromaps-Themes:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/anqh4gfne2k9uhe/cuneo.map?dl=0

    Best regards,
    Christian

    #4668
    Maki
    Participant

    Uhm, I briefly checked the Cuneo test map and the distinction between bic_yes and bic_designated seems to work correctly. However when it comes to “hcw” I see no difference in this way
    http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/127031978#map=16/44.5383/6.9933&layers=D
    It gets highlighted ad “hcw” even if it has proper SAC and MTB tagging. But on the other hand one may argue that in other cases MTB:scale=0 or SAC T1 may apply to cycleways that are part of hiking or biking routes. For the moment I think I’ll just leave that out.

    The art of making maps is to eliminate silly tagging and a bicycle=yes on a sac:scale=T2 IS silly.

    Why is it silly? A while ago I did some stats, there are thousands of paths on the Alps that have T2 and mtb:scale ranging from 1 to 6 (most are 1 and 2, so nothing really difficult). I believe it is redundant unless in that area default access for bicycles on paths is “no”, but it’s not wrong.

    I’m sorry Maki but tagging “yes” only to override “no” is completely silly and it would mean that a path/highway/footway should be tagged with all other yes-values (there are al lot of yes/no tags) to override the no values.

    The meaning about “yes” and “designated” that I quoted are from this wiki page
    http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_Restrictions
    When mapping I try to stick to that, but I realize that things change over the time and old tagging resists. As Tobias says path is a real mess, IMHO there should be distinct tagging for MTB, road cycling and pedestrian.

    Well, my cycle variant is still in initial development phase. It looked simple, but I see it isn’t quite so, I’ll have to do a lot of testing.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.