Better segregated rendering #450
Conversation
Currently segregated cycleways are rendered as a cycleway + a (green) path, but as the green is meant to imply cyclability, and the non-cycle portion is not cyclable, it makes sense to colour it as a bridleway or footway depending on whether or not horse traffic is allowed, respectively.
|
After taking the screenshots, I can barely tell the difference between bridleway and footway shading. Also, while path's default |
|
Hm, I think we should keep thing simple : Brown is the color for pedestrian, red brown for horseman. |
|
But like I mentioned, Some examples of non- |
|
Also: I don't really get why the map has both brown and red-brown for foot/horse... This is a cycle map, surely one shade of brown for both is fine? |
Briddleway rendered differently than footway, because most of the time the briddleway I know are made of sand, which is horrible for bicycle, so even without knowing its surface its good to have a warning about it. |
|
Not per the tagging guidelines for Switzerland, which only tag designated
when the blue signs are used. The second example is not required to be
used, unlike a true designated cycleway.
…On Wed, 18 Nov 2020, 8:13 pm Florimondable, ***@***.***> wrote:
Some examples of non-designated segregated paths that I have tagged
recently, on Mapillary:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/cAGs_AO9jDMCWBK5yWfAOw
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/EBqLADoy4cvkpDyNdIaKpQ
Those path are designated for cyclist, the bicycle logo on the ground.
Briddleway rendered differently than footway, because most of the time the
briddleway I know are made of sand, which is horrible for bicycle, so even
without knowing its surface its good to have a warning about it.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#450 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEXE4EWBCT4UCDKZEMOH6QLSQQMENANCNFSM4TUJU22A>
.
|
|
Designated value doesn't mean the way is compulsory. |
|
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Switzerland/Map_Features.
Switzerland isn't the only country that tags this way, see also Belgium (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Cycleways),
Germany (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren
).
…On Wed, 18 Nov 2020, 10:20 pm Florimondable, ***@***.***> wrote:
Designated value doesn't mean the way is compulsory.
If so the value use_sidepath can be used
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepath.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#450 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEXE4EVCY4MUB6WCNIVYKADSQQ3AJANCNFSM4TUJU22A>
.
|
|
I can't find in the pages that designated should be use when it's compulsory. |
|
BE: "All roads/paths which do not display the signs depicted above, but
where cycling is allowed are best tagged with highway
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=* (use: unclassified,
path etc, depending upon the basic road type) and then bicycle
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle>=yes
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Dyes> if explicitly
signed"
CH: highway=path, other tags can be added way All other ways[1]. Without
one of above sign
In combination with
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath#Usage_as_a_universal_tag
, which specifies that on paths, designated is used for specifying the
legal designation of a path.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Ddesignated supports this
view ("Typically bicycle=designated (or highway=cycleway) requires
special-purpose traffic signs[1]. ")
DE:
*Radfahrer frei*
Zusatzzeichen 1022-10 alleine an einem Weg.
highway <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:highway>=*(wenn von
anderen Fahrzeugen benutzbar meist track
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dtrack> oder service
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dservice>, sonst path
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dpath>)
foot <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:foot>=yes
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:foot%3Dyes>
bicycle <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:bicycle>=yes
oneway <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:oneway>=yes/no [3]
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren#cite_note-onewayOptional-3>
traffic_sign <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:traffic_sign>
=DE:1022-10
…On Wed, 18 Nov 2020, 10:51 pm Florimondable, ***@***.***> wrote:
I can't find in the pages that designated should be use when it's
compulsory.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#450 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEXE4EWUJNJUSWLZ7MYHSCDSQQ6WZANCNFSM4TUJU22A>
.
|
Hello, just want to be sure. These yellow road markings don't hold the same meaning as the round blue signs, correct? In my country similar road markings would have the same meaning as signs, that's why I'm asking. |
|
@VladimirMorozov without the blue signs they are just advisory - you may use them, but don't have to. With the signs, they are compulsory - you aren't allowed to ride on the road anymore, but must use the path. It also has some consequences for electric scooters/skateboards, fast electric bikes ("s-pedelecs") & light mopeds ("mofas"): the blue signs allow them to use their motor while without it they can't. |
|
I believe that any path with segregated=yes should be rendered the same regardless of whether it is bicycle=yes or bicycle=designated (dark blue= exclusive cycle path, which is implied by segregated=yes, regardless of whether you must use it) |
This PR does two things:
First, it changes the colour of the pedestrian side-way, rendered at z17+ when
segregated=yes, away from green. Green would have made sense before footways were shifted from green to brown, but now it doesn't so much - if two separate lines are rendered, the non-bicycle one should be rendered as non-bicycle ways are normally: brown. The colour of a bridleway is used if the way supports horse-riders (including paths that don't exclude them explicitly), otherwise the colour of a footway:(there are two in the image, on either side of the synagogue: the top one is a path, so uses bridleway colouring; the bottom is a footway and so uses footway colouring)
Secondly, and dependent of the first change, it adds support for rendering the side-way for segregated paths that don't have
bicycle=designated(designated is only tagged in some countries when a path legally requires usage; in these countries it doesn't imply anything about the quality of the path for cyclists, and abicycle=yes segregated=yespath could be equal or higher-standard). This would have been confusing before the colour change, because it would have just rendered a path-coloured side-way next to the path-coloured main way, which would have just looked like a fat path, not two side-by-side ways. Now with the brown colour it works: