Bicycle overlay: bicycle=yes not visible

[SLMapper]

A line with highway=footway, bicycle=yes (with or without segregated=no) is not highlighted in the overlay.
See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/22931888

Expected Behavior
Should be highlighted in blue

Versions affected
v50.0-beta1

[matkoniecz]

That is intentional that bicycle=no and bicycle=yes are not highlighted specially. (There is comment in code explaining reasoning for that, I will hunt down it later if noone will be faster)

[SLMapper]

Thanks, will be interested to see this comment.

bicycle=designated currently is displayed in blue.

In Germany the difference between those two is that with bicycle=designated (blue sign) you have to use it, whereas with bicycle=yes ("Fahrrad frei") you are allowed to (which otherwise would be prohibited).
So besides the legal situation in Germany of "must" vs. "can" there is no difference between these two.

This leads to the inconsistency that highway=cycleway is displayed in blue, same as bicycle=designated, but bicycle=yes is not.

I understand that it is not helpful to generelly color it blue for all highways where the default would be yes anyhow (including path). But for sidewalks / footways where bicycle access per default is disallowed, to me it would be helpful.

[legofahrrad]

StreetComplete/app/src/main/java/de/westnordost/streetcomplete/overlays/cycleway/SeparateCyclewayForm.kt

Lines 33 to 55 in 5e0244e

	/* Not displaying bicycle=yes and bicycle=no on footways and treating it the same because
	whether riding a bike on a footway is allowed by default (without requiring signs) or
	only under certain conditions (e.g. certain minimum width of sidewalk) is very much
	dependent on the country or state one is in.
	Hence, it is not verifiable well for the on-site surveyor: If there is no sign that
	specifically allows or forbids cycling on a footway, the user is left with his loose
	(mis)understanding of the local legislation to decide. After all, bicycle=yes/no
	is (usually) nothing physical, but merely describes what is legal. It is in that sense
	then not information surveyable on-the-ground, unless specifically signed.
	bicycle=yes/no does however not make a statement about from where this info is derived.
	So, from an on-site surveyor point of view, it is always better to record what is signed,
	instead of what follows from that signage.
	Signage, however, is out of scope of this overlay because while the physical presence of
	a cycleway can be validated at a glance, the presence of a sign requires to walk a bit up
	or down the street in order to find (or not find) a sign.
	More importantly, at the time of writing, there is no way to tag the information that a
	bicycle=* access restriction is derived from the presence of a sign. This however is a
	prerequisite for it being displayed as a selectable option due to the reasons stated
	above.
	*/

@matkoniecz You meant this comment, right?

[matkoniecz]

yes

[westnordost]

In Germany the difference between those two is that with bicycle=designated (blue sign) you have to use it, whereas with bicycle=yes ("Fahrrad frei") you are allowed to (which otherwise would be prohibited).
So besides the legal situation in Germany of "must" vs. "can" there is no difference between these two.

The overlay really is just about the physical situation, not about the signage. And this is the reason why bicycle=no and bicycle=yes are also thrown into one pot, see above cited comment.
Only of interest is whether there is a physical cycle track, i.e. a path dedicated for cyclists exclusively, regardless of whether it is signed to be mandatory ("benutzungspflichtig") or not.

The signage is a matter out of scope of this overlay that can be recorded separately, as explained in the cited comment - and by the way potentially a humongous amount of work, given the number of different legislation there is in the world and different signage there is in the world (and StreetComplete's aspiration to not confront users with the raw tags but present it with a WYSIWYG kind of UI) .

Maybe iin the future, there could be a quest, limited to Germany (and/or other countries where not all cycle tracks are mandatory/not mandatory) that specifically asks about if there is a blue lollipop for this cycle track.

[SLMapper]

Thank you for commenting. I understand the difficulty to apply per country rules that fit well here.
If it will be kept like this I however find the answers unclear and think a change is needed.

As SC is supposed to be a WYSIWYG UI, what should the user select in the situation described by me?
Example picture:

• Not designated for cyclists (regardless of whether cycling is allowed or not) is wrong, because there is a sign, designating it for cyclists (however SC chooses this option when bicycle=yes is present)
• Designated combined foot- and cycleway is wrong because it would set bicycle=designated which indicates a different (blue lollipop) sign (but I think most people would choose this, but SC does not)

What speaks against adding another option: Footway with designated use for cyclists?
This would resolve the ambiguity.

[SLMapper]

Having this new option would imho even make it easier to review any situation where bicycle=yes is wrongly added.

[matkoniecz]

is wrong, because there is a sign, designating it for cyclists

there is sign allowing it for cyclists (though yes, that may be not entirely clear)

[westnordost]

What speaks against adding another option: Footway with designated use for cyclists?
This would resolve the ambiguity.

Didn't you read the cited comment in the code?
In particular, there is no OSM tag to denote whether a bicycle=yes/no has specifically been signed or not. But without this information, one cannot assume that bicycle=yes means that it is a "Footway with designated use for cyclists". It could be for example just a path in a forest.

How about this? Any clearer?

- Not designated for cyclists (regardless of whether cycling is allowed or not)
+ Not designated for cyclists (regardless of whether cycling is explicitly allowed or not)

[SLMapper]

Any clearer?

I don't think so, unfortunately.

Didn't you read the cited comment in the code?

Yes, I read it before. My summary: bicycle=yes does not indicate if there is a sign or not. This can depend on the country you are in and other factors.

I am only wondering if there would be any concrete problem to handle bicycle=yes on highway=footway like being in any form explicitly allowed (e.g. by a sign or any other visual clue).
What would e.g. be the issue to show this on "a path in a forest"?
I can rather see the benefit of detecting and correcting any non-optimal tagging there. (optionally we could also add a ... option it is not a footway which would change it to highway=path and remove bicycle=yes)

Making it a separate option (like suggested) would imho help not mixing it up with any other form of cycleway.

[SLMapper]

By the way

Signage, however, is out of scope of this overlay because while the physical presence of
a cycleway can be validated at a glance, the presence of a sign requires to walk a bit up
or down the street in order to find (or not find) a sign.

This is already today not true for bicycle=designated + segregated=no, because there the only indication might be the sign and thankfully you are showing it in the overlay 👍

[westnordost]

This is already today not true for bicycle=designated + segregated=no, because there the only indication is the sign and thankfully you are showing it in the overlay 👍

Hm, true.

I am only wondering if there would be any concrete problem to handle bicycle=yes on highway=footway like being in any form explicitly allowed (e.g. by a sign or any other visual clue).
What would e.g. be the issue to show this on "a path in a forest"?

        Hence, it is not verifiable well for the on-site surveyor: If there is no sign that 
        specifically allows or forbids cycling on a footway, the user is left with his loose 
        (mis)understanding of the local legislation to decide. After all, bicycle=yes/no 
        is (usually) nothing physical, but merely describes what is legal. It is in that sense 
        then not information surveyable on-the-ground, unless specifically signed. 
        bicycle=yes/no does however not make a statement about from where this info is derived. 
        [...]
        More importantly, at the time of writing, there is no way to tag the information that a 
        bicycle=* access restriction is derived from the presence of a sign. This however is a 
        prerequisite for it being  displayed as a selectable option due to the reasons stated 
        above. 

To elaborate: Whether or not bicycles are allowed by default on a sidewalk and under what conditions (in Germany: always "no" unless otherwise signed.... as far as I know, that is) differs from country to country. In Poland, there is some rule like "if the sidewalk is broader than X meters and also some other criteria is given" it is allowed, otherwise prohibited. We can't expect surveyors to know these rules. But if we showed that information, we'd expect that from him, because otherwise he might re-tag that information incorrectly to "none allowed" (or "yes, allowed") because there is no sign and he just assumes that bicycles will be not allowed / be allowed there.

[matkoniecz]

In Poland, there is some rule like "if the sidewalk is broader than X meters and also some other criteria is given" it is allowed, otherwise prohibited.

It is more complex!

It can be legal on sidewalk under default rules:

• when sidewalk is wider than 2m and carriageway allows more than 50 km/h
• or during dangerously bad weather
• or when accompanying child that is cycling but legally considered as pedestrian (younger than 11 years old if I remember right)
• otherwise not allowed

Cycling can be also banned by sign, in such case neither of this applies (so you cannot cycle on such sidewalk also in case of a bad weather and so on).

But young children can still cycle as they are legally considered as pedestrians (not sure about people accompanying them...)

[westnordost]

Well okay, but most of this is not relevant for tagging in OSM

[SLMapper]

We can't expect surveyors to know these rules. But if we showed that information, we'd expect that from him, because otherwise he might re-tag that information incorrectly to "none allowed" (or "yes, allowed") because there is no sign and he just assumes that bicycles will be not allowed / be allowed there.

ok. What about

• displaying bicycle=yes as Footway with designated use for cyclists (signed or legally)
• but showing a confirmation prompt when user tries to change it from this value?
• (optionally the this is not a footway ... answer)

This would allow to

• display it (will remove ambiguity and give a more complete picture)
• select it (when you see the sign or know that it is legally allowed)

[matkoniecz]

Well okay, but most of this is not relevant for tagging in OSM

I just wanted to give that as example of why

We can't expect surveyors to know these rules. But if we showed that information, we'd expect that from him, because otherwise he might re-tag that information incorrectly to "none allowed" (or "yes, allowed") because there is no sign and he just assumes that bicycles will be not allowed / be allowed there.

[westnordost]

displaying bicycle=yes as Footway with designated use for cyclists (signed or legally)

Translation issue? How is a footway on which bicycles are allowed "designated use" for cyclists?

[SLMapper]

Maybe. My understanding of "designated" (German: "ausgewiesen", "bezeichnet") is that there is a sign. However translations "ernannt" and "vorgesehen" could mean any (non exclusive) dedication without a visible sign.

Anyhow: What do you think about the suggestion using Footway with allowed use for cyclists (signed or legally)

[westnordost]

Well, as said, that shifts the responsibility to decide whether something is "legally" allowed or not onto the individual mapper. We do not do that in StreetComplete. For good reason. A little warning dialog will not better that situation.

It is not only a matter of UI / design principle in StreetComplete to be easy for the average joe but also a question of data quality. If it is up to each individual mapper to decide if something is "legally" allowed or not, it will result in a hodgepodge of wrong and correct values, depending each on how much in detail the individual user is informed about the legal situation.

(For example, are you actually sure that German law does not have similar rules and exceptions as the Polish law? There must be something in the law that in general allows bicycle traffic on just some path without any sign, but on the other hand forbids bicycle traffic on "straßenbegleitende" ways unless it is signed. Such details are important when one wants to tag bicycle=yes/no explicitly according to the current regulations).

Not to mention what happens if the legislation changes.

The only way to escape this situation is to have a tag to denote whether the individual bicycle access restriction is derived from an actual sign or not, like access:bicycle:signed=yes or something(?). As far as I know, that tag does not exist (yet), so any further discussion about whether recording this kind of information could maybe be integrated into the overlay is blocked until such time.

[SLMapper]

Ok I see my proposal seems not suitable.

I however still see a problem with the existing situation.

Ethymological the word "designated" is related to "sign", same as in German "bezeichnet" is related to "Zeichen".

Therefore "not designated for cyclists..." is wrong to me in case there is a sign.

If "bicycle=yes" can mean there is a sign, this wording is incorrect for the cases where a sign is really present.

I doubt however the usage of something like access:bicycle:signed=yes would expand fast even if accepted by the community.

So what other solution can you think of?

• Is there maybe a better wording to distinguish between
  • allowed bicycle access (maybe by sign)
  • explicit cycleway (blue sign)
• or is there a better additional option to reflect allowed bicycle access (maybe signed) - from your answer it seems not possible

[westnordost]

I'm not a native English speaker. "dedicated"?

[westnordost]

Maybe there is a solution that would add another selectable option to distinguish at least between:

• foot=designated + bicycle=no/yes/unset -> "Footway (regardless of whether cycling is allowed or not)"
• foot=yes + bicycle=yes (e.g. highway=path with no extra tags) -> "A path without any designation"

Whether this solves the angle you criticized I don't know, but at least paths in the forest etc. wouldn't be displayed in black (but probably similar to shared foot- and cycleway)

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/fahrradfahrer-frei-von-situationen-unterscheiden-in-denen-radfahrer-implizit-erlaubt-sind/6478/6?u=westnordost

[SLMapper]

Thank you for asking in the osm community. Currently I dont have time to check this, but will do so some days later.
If anybody else can see if it will help to distinguish the mentioned scenarios that is appreciated.

[westnordost]

I also asked in slack-us regarding "designated" and "dedicated" and will update the wording accordingly.

[joshinils]

That combination of DE:239 + DE:1022-10 implies a maxspeed:bicylce=walk! though no one actually tags it as such and even less people actually go that slow.

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvo_2013/anlage_2.html
StVO Anlage 2, Abschnitt 5 Sonderwege, 18, Zeichen 239 Gehweg :

2. Ist durch Zusatzzeichen die Benutzung eines Gehwegs für eine andere Verkehrsart erlaubt, muss diese auf den Fußgängerverkehr Rücksicht nehmen. Der Fußgängerverkehr darf weder gefährdet noch behindert werden. Wenn nötig, muss der Fahrverkehr warten; er darf nur mit Schrittgeschwindigkeit fahren.

Which is why the distinction is important to me, since I do not want a router to take these paths unless absolutely necessary.

[joshinils]

Maybe there is a solution that would add another selectable option to distinguish at least between:

* `foot=designated + bicycle=no/yes/unset` -> "Footway (regardless of whether cycling is allowed or not)"

* `foot=yes + bicycle=yes` (e.g. `highway=path` with no extra tags) -> "A path without any designation"

Whether this solves the angle you criticized I don't know, but at least paths in the forest etc. wouldn't be displayed in black (but probably similar to shared foot- and cycleway)

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/fahrradfahrer-frei-von-situationen-unterscheiden-in-denen-radfahrer-implizit-erlaubt-sind/6478/6?u=westnordost

The German forest law specifically allows cycling on all visible paths in any forest, so any path in any forest (private or not) is automatically a shared foot and cycleway.

BWaldG § 14 Betreten des Waldes

(1) Das Betreten des Waldes zum Zwecke der Erholung ist gestattet. Das Radfahren, das Fahren mit
Krankenfahrstühlen und das Reiten im Walde ist nur auf Straßen und Wegen gestattet. Die Benutzung geschieht
auf eigene Gefahr. Dies gilt insbesondere für waldtypische Gefahren.

In any case, legalities per country should not concern SC. Only if the tagging is as such, with the per country default values for an otherwise untagged path.

[westnordost]

Which is why the distinction is important to me, since I do not want a router to take these paths unless absolutely necessary.

Yeah, so you choose the option "not designated for cyclists". Anyway, that example above... maybe in paper you may go only walk speed, but i bet even the people who put this sign weren't aware of that 🤷

The German forest law specifically allows cycling on all visible paths in any forest, so any path in any forest (private or not) is automatically a shared foot and cycleway.

No, it's a "path". Everything is allowed unless forbidden.

[joshinils]

Yeah, so you choose the option "not designated for cyclists". Anyway, that example above... maybe in paper you may go only walk speed, but i bet even the people who put this sign weren't aware of that shrug

yeh 🙄 🤷

The German forest law specifically allows cycling on all visible paths in any forest, so any path in any forest (private or not) is automatically a shared foot and cycleway.

No, it's a "path". Everything is allowed unless forbidden.

Yes, but I wanted to give an example on where cycling access-tagging can be a result of a law many people do not know about.
Even a sign disallowing cycling in a forest is legally void, and thus the value in OSM (in my opinion) should probably follow the legal value over a sign on-the-ground. Reason being that it is most probably only temporary because of tree work and closed to everyone during and open after.

[SLMapper]

I like the improved situation in v 50.0:

• wording is more clear now - at least in German: Nicht ausgewiesen als Radweg (Radfahren kann trotzdem erlaubt sein). This imho resolves the previous ambiguity.
  • most likely English should be adapted accordingly from current Not designated for cyclists (cycling may still be allowed) to Not designated as cycleway (...)
• paths are now also highlighted. This could be helpful, but on the other hand leads to inconsistency. See below.

Current situation

Highlighted (shown as Path or trail):

• highway=path example
• highway=path (surface=grass, mtb:scale=4) example - yes surface or mtb scale are not evaluated, but this reveals that highlighting path like a "cycleway" might not be ideal
• highway=footway, bicycle=yes, foot=yes example

Not highlighted (shown as Not designated for cyclists (...)):

• highway=footway example
• highway=footway, bicycle=yes example
• highway=footway, foot=designated, bicycle=yes example
• highway=footway, footway=sidewalk, foot=designated, bicycle=yes example

Suggestion

• do not highlight highway=path or highway=footway in general. Instead only highlight them whenever there is a bicycle=yes on it. Because it means, allowed bicycle usage is explicity tagged, compared to any path where it is implicity allowed anyhow.
• (maybe) add another option when bicycle=yes is set on such ways

[westnordost]

Hw=path is highlighted mainly because "some path" in the forest shouldn't look like you can't cycle there. Hw=path implies yes for both foot and bicycle. It is treated as such in the parser for the data (hence, no difference can be made between hw=path and hw=path+bicycle=yes).

[SLMapper]

So for paths no difference between explicit and implicit bicycle=yes, ok.

Though you are highlighting them because cycle access is allowed there, while refraining from highlighting bicycle=yes on footways for the same reason, right?

Current situation is inconsistant, as

• some paths/footways are highlighted, some not (leads to not understanding why some are highlighted and some not - thereby effectively reducing the meaningfullness of the highlighting)
• in the forest/field paths are highlighted, but tracks are not (leads to highlights appearing in the out of nowhere)

I can attach examples if wanted.

[westnordost]

So, should maybe paths be highlighted in black, too?

[SLMapper]

If you prefer to keep highway=footway, bicycle=yes in black, then yes, paths should be black as well.

[SLMapper]

In addition we could think it the other way round, adding another highlight color for disallowed bicycle access (footway=yes without bicycle=yes and any way with bicycle=no)

[SLMapper]

Thanks, it's consistant now.

I am thinking about opening a new issue to give all bicycle=yes or path a different color to make this overlay more effective / show the complete picture.
However that's for the future.

Now it is mostly clear and understandable and I like this.