Ansicht von 15 Beiträgen - 1 bis 15 (von insgesamt 28)
  • Autor
    Beiträge
  • #27088

    ninesevenoh
    Teilnehmer

    Hi,

    In the UK bridleways are designated for bikes also, but generally are only suitable for mountain bikes. Could the rendering in Elevate be modified somehow to highlight bridleways more in the mountain bike theme? For example, the 200 mile Pennine Bridleway route is a designated horse, mountain bike and hiking route, but does not show at all in the Elevate rendering (using Locus).

    https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/50288#map=8/53.718/-1.115

    For example, the Pennine Bridleway is not highlighted as a route in this area on any theme
    https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/50288#map=14/53.4990/-2.0005

    Additionally tracks and paths marked as designated=public_bridleway dont appear to be highlighted uniquely, so its difficult to tell what is a private farmers track and what is legal to cycle on. Only highway=bridleway appear to be uniquely rendered, as dots. Roads with cycle paths have a blue border, maybe something similar for designated=public_bridleway, like a dashed track with a green border? An example track:

    https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/299649754#map=15/53.1310/-2.0216

    Many thanks

    #27091
    JohnPercy
    JohnPercy
    Teilnehmer

    The reason that at least this part of the Pennine Bridleway does not show as a cycle route or a mtb route is because it is mapped as network = „nhn;nwn“, which I take to be national hiking network and national walking network. It would also need to be mapped as part of a cycle or mtb network.
    As for showing bike access on tracks, I don’t understand Elevate well enough to comment but my Voluntary themes include dashed markers showing access on tracks, which are otherwise uncertain.
    Finally, using designated =“public_bridleway“ is UK specific, and it is probably(?) better to work from the access tags.

    #27093
    Tobias
    Tobias
    Moderator

    Interesting, I’ll look into it. As John said the necessary access tags (and route tags) are obligatory for correct rendering, e.g bicycle=yes etc.

    Developer of Elevate mapstyle

    #27096
    ChristianK
    ChristianK
    Keymaster

    Sometimes the scripts for resolving these relations are ignoring these multi_relations.
    For the relation in question it should resolve the hiking part.
    Thats a bug – I will take a look at it

    #27105

    ninesevenoh
    Teilnehmer

    Thanks for the replies. I’ve been a little reluctant to tag bridleways with bicycle=yes as I didnt want to mislead people into thinking that they are suitable for any bike. Opencyclemap.org seems to render most things with bicycle=yes the same as surfaced bike routes (just dashed blue lines). This example renders as a blue cycle path in elevate and opencyclemap, but you wouldnt ride a road bike down it, even though it is legal and fine for a mtb.
    It looks like John’s voluntary Locus theme does what I’m describing, where bridleways on tracks are highlighted, although in this example the footpath has rendering priority over the bridleway. Is this because it lacks a bicycle=yes tag?. Again, it has a legal right of way for bikes, but is not a nice cycle path, it is a muddy bridleway track, so I’m hesitant to tag it and have it rendered as a blue cycle path.

    Finally, John, would adding ncn to the network tag of the Pennine Bridleway relation help fix the issue of it not being displayed, for Voluntary at least?

    #27114
    Tobias
    Tobias
    Moderator

    The access tags are only about the legal status, there are other tags like surface or mtb scale which define if it’s possible to use it with a certain kind of bicycle:
    https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
    So please use it, a mountain bike IS a bicycle.

    And yes, NCN etc. are the cycling routes, if there are only horse riding routes etc. it’s not shown

    Developer of Elevate mapstyle

    #27126
    ChristianK
    ChristianK
    Keymaster

    Sorry, Thread was deleted by mistake and destroyed.
    I had to restore it right in the database and hope that is complete and OK

    Christian

    1 Teilnehmer(n) gefällt dieser Beitrag
    #27128
    JohnPercy
    JohnPercy
    Teilnehmer

    And yes, NCN etc. are the cycling routes, if there are only horse riding routes etc. it’s not shown

    In principle, that’s correct but as Christian has already pointed out, the script is not resolving the multi-values such as network = “nhn;nwn” so adding ncn would not help at present.

    Sometimes the scripts for resolving these relations are ignoring these multi_relations.
    For the relation in question it should resolve the hiking part.
    Thats a bug – I will take a look at it

    #27130
    Tobias
    Tobias
    Moderator

    In principle, that’s correct but as Christian has already pointed out, the script is not resolving the multi-values such as network = “nhn;nwn” so adding ncn would not help at present.

    That was meant in addition to anything written above including what Christian wrote. Of course if there’s a problem resolving it it has to be fixed, but even then it would never show up in a cycling theme if it isn’t mapped as a cycling route. So just that bridleway routes can also be used as cycling or hiking routes in th UK doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be also mapped as those. Horse riding routes aren’t included in OAM anyway.

    Developer of Elevate mapstyle

    #27132
    JohnPercy
    JohnPercy
    Teilnehmer

    Actually I have my doubts over how this route should be tagged. Certainly the sections all ought to have correct access tags including bike=yes or bike=designated. This will help the rendering.
    I don’t know however whether this is really a national cycle network. Unlike other ncn routes (in the UK at least) it’s not accessible by standard bike. I can’t find any relevant guidance either.

    • Diese Antwort wurde geändert vor 6 Monate, 1 Woche von JohnPercy JohnPercy.
    #27135
    ChristianK
    ChristianK
    Keymaster

    Of course if there’s a problem resolving it it has to be fixed

    Fixed for hiking relations – so „route=foot|hiking“ hidden in/between other keys should work now.

    For mtb/bicycle this may cause a problem cause when I wrote these scripts years ago MTB and BICYCLE Relations never shared the same ways/paths, so there were no conficts.

    ???

    #27137
    ChristianK
    ChristianK
    Keymaster

    So, bug resolved for route=bicycle too.
    BUT, I’m shure that this will cause confusion.
    There are _losts_ of relation tagged as route=“foot;bicycle;horse“ and I’m shure that these paths/ways are primarily for horse riders and only suitable but not intended for walkers and cyclists.

    Anyway, its up to the mappers to set the right tag/keys

    I will render a GB map for testing

    And please, dont set NCN’s where no NCN exits ;-)

    Best regards
    Christian

    2 Benutzer dankten dem Autor für diesen Beitrag.
    #27145
    Tobias
    Tobias
    Moderator

    I finally had a deeper look a this, and I think highway=bridleway is a mess.
    In the english Wiki it says:

    A way intended for use by horse riders (primarily) and pedestrians (depending on country-specific regulations). They may be legally designated as rights of way for pedestrians and equestrians (horses). Depending on the country, cyclists may be also permitted, though the surface may not be suitable.

    Then the Wiki contradicts the country-specifics when it states:

    Implies
    horse=designated
    foot=yes
    bicycle=yes
    motor_vehicle=no

    In the German Wiki it says, that it only implies horse=designated and motorcar=no, and may only be used by horse riders, except walking or cycling is explicitly allowed, which would need foot=yes or bicycle=yes.
    As I can’t design country specific themes, this makes it very hard to render correctly for those two countries. Who knows what pitfalls await in other countries…

    But for getting at least the UK right I would propose:
    If a bridleway has designation=public_bridleway, this should be transformed to bicycle=yes and foot=yes, except any bicycle/foot tag already exisits.
    https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_access_provisions#Public_bridleways

    Then I would test in the theme for bridleways if the have positive bicycle and/or foot tags, and render them like paths with the same tags.
    There are also highway=track/residential/path etc. with designation=public_bridleway, but those are rendered as the highway-tag anyway, so this is already usable for hikers/bikers.

    Developer of Elevate mapstyle

    #27147
    Tobias
    Tobias
    Moderator

    Additionally tracks and paths marked as designated=public_bridleway dont appear to be highlighted uniquely, so its difficult to tell what is a private farmers track and what is legal to cycle on.

    Negative access tags are shown for tracks and paths, e.g. access/foot/bicycle=no/private etc., as a pattern above the path/track. So when this pattern is missing, the default value of a country can be assumed, for those check here:
    https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#United_Kingdom
    For paths this would mean yes in the UK (although with an*), but there’s no information for tracks.
    Is there any general legal access for tracks and paths in the UK, or is every track/path without access tags automatically private?

    Developer of Elevate mapstyle

    #27164

    ninesevenoh
    Teilnehmer

    On our OS maps we have paths and tracks, and any with an additional green small dash is a legal footpath right of way, and longer green dashes are a bridleway right of way. The OS map legend explicitly states ‚The representation on this map of any other road, track or path is no evidence of the existence of a right of way‘, but many are fine for public use anyway. It is a bit confusing sometimes….
    I agree adding bicycle=yes, foot=yes to ways tagged designation=public_bridleway where appropriate, and myself paying more attention to mapping the surface could work. Accurate surface tags would mean not needing to colour bridleways similar to mountain bike trails (like I originally suggested), and this way a track, road etc with designation=public_bridleway would now show as having legal cycle access, even when the original mapper didnt put a bicycle=yes tag.

    Thanks for looking into this. I get walkers complain at me sometimes for being on a bike on ‚their path‘, so its useful to be able to show them that I’m on a legal bridleway :)

Ansicht von 15 Beiträgen - 1 bis 15 (von insgesamt 28)

Du musst angemeldet sein, um auf dieses Thema antworten zu können.