-
Beiträge
-
Hello,
It seems some paths have mtb=yes|no|designated, but no bicycle tag; maybe this should be considered equivalent?
Thanks!It’s not really clear what mtb=* means, but the wiki says it’s probably not an equivalent to bicycle=* in the legal sense:
The key mtb=* has been used for different to types of information regarding mountain bikes since 2009. This key was not documented until April 2020 and its actual use is not very clear, but points more towards practical suitability then legal access-restrictions as meant in Key:access.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Amtb
So it shouldn’t be added as equivalent, and as it has no well defined meaning I don’t see any sense in adding it.
Developer of Elevate mapstyle
1 Teilnehmer(n) gefällt dieser Beitrag
There is a large number of ways with mtb=yes | designated in various places (https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1m4x), so there is definitely some sense in adding it. If it should not be equivalent to bicyle=yes | designated, then maybe using another tag? For example, something like mtb_scale=mtbs_unknown (well, this is probably not a good suggestion, just trying to avoid a new tag…)?
Thanks!Just the sheer number doesn’t mean it’s useful. And a tag that is not defined and has probably different meanings (sometimes legal, sometimes suitability, and maybe more) is not useful and I wouldn’t transform it to some different tag – as we don’t know what meaning the mapper intended.
So sorry, I still don’t see any sense. The best sense in my opinion of this tag is to see it as a note this should be corrected, e.g. export all tags in your area from overpass-turbo and check on the ground and map it properly.Developer of Elevate mapstyle
1 Teilnehmer(n) gefällt dieser Beitrag
Sorry Tobias, I forgot I already started this discussion.
I agree that transforming mtb to bicycle, as I initially suggested, would not be very wise.
Even if not documented, mtb=designated is pretty explicit, and is useful both to mountain bikers, and to hikers that would typically avoid these ways even when not explicitly disallowed to pedestrians.
mtb=yes is more ambiguous, but this is widely used and cannot be considered as „should be corrected“. The best would be of course to have a dedicated tag, but as tags are limited, what about another tag value for mtb_scale (when not provided) , for example? Is there a drawback?
Thanks!Even if not documented, mtb=designated is pretty explicit, and is useful both to mountain bikers, and to hikers that would typically avoid these ways even when not explicitly disallowed to pedestrians.
But it’s still not clear what it is, it is not defined!
– Is it an access tag? Then it would not be not part of the general network of ways with highway=*, as there is no legal difference between every other bicycle and a mtb that I know of, so bicycle=* would be the proper tag. If it’s not of the general network of ways, but an purpose built sport track made and only usable with mtb – that would fit leisure=track and sport=mtb much better. Elevate already renders leisure=track and mtb:scale=* accordingly.
– Is it suitability for mtb? Then what’s the difference between mtb=designated and mtb=yes?
There is a common misunderstanding of access tags, and there are even more wrong bicycle=* than those undocumented mtb=*. Numbers don’t mean that the tagging makes sense. Often someones thinks this path is not suitable for bicycle and adds a bicycle=no, even if it’s perfectly legal to use it. I think the same thinkg happened here: someone thinks a path is fine for mtb, but not for regular cycling, and adds mtb=yes (and maybe removes bicycle=yes). That would be suitability, but every path is kind of usable with a mtb – except mtb:scale=6. So this is no usable information either, usable information is provided by mtb:scale.But without proper definition one can only guess, and for guessing the possible value in this tag is too vague.
Developer of Elevate mapstyle
leisure=track + sport=mtb seems only used for a few tiny urban tracks. Maybe a confusion with sport=bmx, or maybe a very short loop.
mtb=designated seems consistently used for much longer MTB-crafted mountain trails, often accessible from a ski lift, which may or may not be used by hikers, but are typically not well suited to them.
Also, mtb=designated may be used for informal trails (no signposting, no reference, and thus no route relation), as well as for formal trails (e.g. managed by a ski station or by an MTB club)
mtb=designated seems consistently used for much longer MTB-crafted mountain trails, often accessible from a ski lift, which may or may not be used by hikers, but are typically not well suited to them.
bicycle=designated would be correct if it’s a part of the general network of ways, leisure=track if it’s a dedicated sport track. No need for mtb=*
What kind of bicycle is a different question, where mtb:scale is a good help.Also, mtb=designated may be used for informal trails (no signposting, no reference, and thus no route relation)
No:
A preferred or designated route for the class of traffic specified by the tag key, such as foot=designated, in general this means that there is a (explicit) sign saying something like „pedestrians allowed“, or a pedestrian icon.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
Developer of Elevate mapstyle
in general this means that there is a (explicit) sign
„in general“, yes.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Path also says:
access=designated indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically by a government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport. The specific meaning varies according to jurisdiction. It may imply extra usage rights for the given mode of transport, or may be just a suggested route.
„typically“ by a government, but just typically.
I welcome your willingness to follow the documented guidelines, however it does not dispense from common sense. Both formal and informal MTB-crafted trails, either officially disallowed to pedestrians, or just inappropriate for them, should in my opinion be displayed differently than other paths, even (and especially) for hikers that typically won’t display MTB or bicycle features on the map. And rendering MTB trails as cycleways (as highway=path + bicycle=designated is supposed to be equivalent to highway=cycleway + foot=yes) is also very confusing IMHO.
I don’t think that just ignoring the mtb tag (especially mtb=designated, but also mtb=yes) is the best option (except for practical reasons, like 15-tag limit, but if exceeding tags can be removed by priority now, is this still an issue?).
Thanks!
I don’t think that just ignoring the mtb tag (especially mtb=designated, but also mtb=yes) is the best option
It is, as I wrote above, but maybe you were just ignoring what I wrote 😉
Developer of Elevate mapstyle
maybe you were just ignoring what I wrote
Certainly not! Your points are perfectly relevant for ignoring the mtb tag in the elevate theme. Technical considerations (number of tags, file size, processing time, script complexity…) would also be relevant for omitting this tag in OAM. But I think that the lack of official documentation and the relative diversity of usages this brings are not sufficient to completely omit this tag, given that is commonly used in many regions, and that it is especially useful to the target users of OAM.
Well, to implement that correctly, you’d need to do some „geo-fencing“ in the map generation process to differentiate regions where valid information can be assumed, from those where the majority is crap („diversity of usages“ is too nice a term, I think). And someone doing the researcbh what/where is what/where. And follow up the discussions with users with different opinions …
Any full time volunteers out there for this nightmare?1 Teilnehmer(n) gefällt dieser Beitrag
I wasn’t writing about not adding it to Elevate but to the maps.
I think the essence is still in this post:
https://www.openandromaps.org/en/oam-forums/topic/mtb#post-51289Developer of Elevate mapstyle
- Sie müssen angemeldet sein, um zu diesem Thema eine Antwort verfassen zu können.
