No distinction between full separation, segregated and unsegregated

[MrDeni5]

Three very different types of cycle route but can only be described onece

[Florimondable]

cycleway=track
highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated segregated=yes
highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated

These three scheme has there own rendering on CyclOSM. So, what's the issue ?

[brainwad]

I have a similar problem: The bottom example ("sharing") can be tagged as any 3 of these:

highway=cycleway foot=designated
highway=footway bicycle=designated
highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated

But the first tagging will produce a deep blue line (like how "full separation", i.e. highway=cycleway, is rendered), while the other two produce a lighter royal blue line. Probably all 3 should be royal blue, and the deep blue should be reserved only for ways designated only for bicycles, i.e. only when there is no other mode tagged as designated and there is no segregated tag (because a segregated tag implies sharing).

[Phyks]

First tagging example (highway=cycleway foot=designated) seems to be typically this kind of street layouts https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/48729082, which indeed are closer to highway=path than to highway=cycleway. This example has been reviewed afterwards by quite many prominent bike contributors in France, so it seems to be representative (at least of the tagging practice in France).

Therefore, we should probably have:

• highway=cycleway foot=designated + segregated=yes > keep current rendering with a deep blue
• In absence of any segregated value (or segregated=no) > consider it analogous to a path / designated footway

[Florimondable]

I disagree

[MrDeni5]

Well the issue is that the mapping and reality are not in sync - I fact the reality and signage are not in sync in many cases

Local to me - Walthamstow Mini-Holland - there are a number of path layouts that are contradicted by their signage.

It's the signs that carry legal weight and not the layout - yet mapping represents layout without regard to signage.

Disingenuous parties claim both which equates to double counting

If there is an issue with designation then those contentious sections should be highlighted as so and not waived through

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 21:01, Florimondable notifications@github.com wrote:

I disagree

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/cyclosm/cyclosm-cartocss-style/issues/397#issuecomment-689788209, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AP6QC6IQV7Z2ATSTPQC73TTSE7NIJANCNFSM4N5PW4AQ .

[brainwad]

@Florimondable : why? While we can assume (from the default access restrictions) that a bare highway=cycleway is only for bikes, and so "segregated" by virtue of only allowing one mode, if another mode is also designated then that assumption falls away, right, and we should just assume the default, which for segregated= is no, unless otherwise tagged.

Basically, @cycle-fill should be for paths where there is a portion of their surface (possibly 100%) that is designated exclusively for bikes, while @mixed-cycle-fill should be for paths where the path is designated for a mix of bicycles and other modes (usually foot, sometimes horse too), shouldn't it?

[quasart]

Since the same way may be tagged in different tagging style (indeed there is no clear definition of the highway path and highway cyclaway tags, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy ) some contributors use path as soon as a way accessible by multiple unmotorised users, and others use cycleway as soon as it’s designated for bikes.

I think the rendering should render path/cycleway the same, only default values of other tags are different.