Cycleway with surface shows red on surface overlay

[tjur0]

Given a highway=cycleway with sidewalk=, surface= and segregated= the surface overlay shows a red color indicatin that no surface is present.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/365900455

How to Reproduce
Look at surface overlay, on a cycleway with sidewalk=, surface= and segregated= tagged.

Expected Behavior
It is expected that if the surface of a cycleway is filled in that the color is blue.

Versions affected
58.2

[matkoniecz]

That is basically the same as #5878

[jdhoek]

That is basically the same as #5878

Potentially same cause, different outcome. Ways tagged with surface=* should not be marked as incomplete. The issues are related, not duplicates.

[mnalis]

The issues are related, not duplicates.

That is technically correct; but the reasoning behind it (why current behaviour is intended and not a bug) and thus the outcome come from the same decision.

I've added several links to #5878 (comment) which give background and history why segregated=yes way without footway:surface=* and cycleway:surface=* is considered incomplete (and thus colored red in Surface overlay).

[westnordost]

Duplicate of linked issue

[westnordost]

By the way, it appears that at the location shown, the tag surface=asphalt is actually wrong. The footway part of the segregated cycle+footway is not asphalt but paving stones. (And some of them are actually both paving stones.)

[tjur0]

As a local i know that this cycleway has recently been fully repaved into red asphalt, while the sidewalk is made from paving stones that is correctly mapped with sidewalk=right.

In the Netherlands ether something is a cycleway with a sidewalk, or it is a cycleway on itself. In the rare few cases that a path is a shared footway cycleway, the surface is almost always the same.

This makes ‘cycleway:surface’ and ‘footway:surface’ unwanted on cycleways.

The users of SC do not know the damage that they are causing, and the fact that you are not willing to understand and work with local tagging is damaging to OSM.

Please make SC follow guidelines and disable this feature in the Netherlands.

[jdhoek]

This is happening because StreetComplete thinks a way with segregated=yes and sidewalk=right has some hidden extra lane for pedestrians between the sidewalk and the cycleway. The presence of a sidewalk implies segregated=yes, and StreetComplete should first look at the sidewalk tags before going down the shared-bicycle-footway route.

In this case segregated=yes is redundant, and StreetComplete is tripping up because of that tag. That's a bug.

By the way, it appears that at the location shown, the tag surface=asphalt is actually wrong. The footway part of the segregated cycle+footway is not asphalt but paving stones. (And some of them are actually both paving stones.)

surface=asphalt is correct. That is the surface of the cycleway. Sidewalks mapped as attributes can have their surface tagged with something like sidewalk:right:surface, never footway:surface.

Please make StreetComplete follow OpenStreetMap conventions and disable this feature in the Netherlands.

[matkoniecz]

you are not willing to understand and work with local tagging is damaging to OSM

Handling sidewalk tagging was added specifically after requests from NL

StreetComplete supports enormous amount of local peculiarities

[mcliquid]

In this case segregated=yes is redundant, and StreetComplete is tripping up because of that tag. That's a bug.

It should be possible to fix this by extending the existing filter so that StreetComplete does not ask whether a cycleway with a sidewalk is segregated or not. Regarding to the wiki the following changes could fix this:

Change this:

StreetComplete/app/src/main/java/de/westnordost/streetcomplete/quests/segregated/AddCyclewaySegregation.kt

Line 30 in 962c7b2

and !sidewalk

To this:
and (!sidewalk or !sidewalk:left or !sidewalk:right or !sidewalk:both)

Of course, this does not prevent segregated=yes with any sidewalk value from being added by users in other editors (see here in your example way where segregated=yes and sidewalk=right was added with JOSM 8 years ago). But this is beyond the scope of StreetComplete anyway.
If segregated=yes is implied by the presence of any sidewalk value, I guess you should mass-delete this throughout the Netherlands. Maybe you want to start with these ~ 12000 ways here: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1QPq

[...] never footway:surface.
Please make StreetComplete follow OpenStreetMap conventions and disable this feature in the Netherlands.

This is not clear to me from the wiki, or where should I look for this local convention in the wiki? Can you link the wiki page for this please?

See also these wiki pages without mentioning this local rule:

• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:footway:surface
• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway:surface
• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway

[westnordost]

There has been a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong discussion here https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagging-of-adjacent-cycleway-footway-sidewalk/108404/35 with no apparent outcome. But @rhhsm really endeavored to reach some sort of consensus or conclusion that could be documented. But then the discussion just went on and on and on, so I am not sure if there was any conclusion that should have any consequences in how SC interprets the tags. Maybe @rhhsm can summarize it, if there was a conclusion.

[westnordost]

@mcliquid checking something for sidewalk but not for sidewal:<side> seems like a bug to me. I will check it out, thanks for pointing it out.

[westnordost]

To this:
and (!sidewalk or !sidewalk:left or !sidewalk:right or !sidewalk:both)

By the way, this wrong. Look again :->

[mcliquid]

@westnordost I wrote "could fix" not "will fix" ;) I never said it was correct.