Make highway=track and bicycle=designated/yes more visible

[LucasNicola]

In rural areas, there are lots of agricultural tracks (highway=track and tracktype=grade1) that are used a a cycle network (bicycle=designated or yes) as they are safe, comfortable, and already existing. Unfortunately in cyclosm they are not rendered in blue like others cycleways and cyclepaths unless they are part of a cycleroute, which is not always the case. That makes them invisible to cyclists and it is a shame. Could it be an improvement for the rendering ? Thanks for reading me.

[Phyks]

Indeed, I think we only do it for highway=path or highway=cycleway (shared cycleways in the cities) but not highway=track.

Would you have some area which can be used for testing and is representative of the lack of render?

Thanks!

[LucasNicola]

Thanks for your reply! I live in Alsace, France and I'm thinking of this area South of Neuf-Brisach : 47.9885,7.5991 For instance there is a track with bicycle=designated going South to North from Nambsheim to Vogelgrun which is not rendered at all on cyclosm. In Germany there are tons of them but most are part of a network so the render is good. Let me know if I can help!

[kaneap]

To add to this highway=track + bicycle=designated is already documented (on the German wiki):

Should this situation be rendered the same as highway=path + bicycle=designated? Perhaps the rendering for highway=track needs to be redone altogether, as we render access restrictions (e.g. motor_vehicle=no as light green) on other road types but not on highway=track.

[LucasNicola]

Hi, any update? Have you tested some render on an area? Thanks!

[Phyks]

Sorry for my late reply, I've been quite busy lately and although I'm not forgetting this issue, I'm not sure when I will be able to commit enough time to tackle it. Happy to take any PR!

To add to this highway=track + bicycle=designated is already documented (on the German wiki):

From my understanding (I can't speak German, relying on automated translation), this is not a regular highway=track but it requires further access restrictions tags (access=agricultural|destination for example). That being said, I think I would be fine to render a highway=track with limited motor vehicles traffic as a highway=path (and same thing with the subrender with explicit bicycle designation).

A highway=track with limited motor traffic should basically boil down to a highway=path which is large enough to fit a potential motor vehicle.

[Phyks]

Referencing #672 which is quite related.

[waterced]

Hi I was about to open a new issue that is precisely this one, so I'll contribute here.

In the french context, a 'Voie Verte' is a way designated for pedestrian/bikes. By default, these are typically taggued as highway=path but some may remain open to agricultural transit. This is the case for this one , voie verte signed as such but that remain open to agricultural vehicules (see picture below). It only stands out as 'cyclable' by being a part of bike route relation.

Similarly, here is a changeset of a legit highway=track changed to highway=cycleway by a contributor who wanted it to be rendered as cyclable in BRrouter, which uses CyclOSM rendering.

[waterced]

From my understanding (I can't speak German, relying on automated translation), this is not a regular highway=track but it requires further access restrictions tags (access=agricultural|destination for example). That being said, I think I would be fine to render a highway=track with limited motor vehicles traffic as a highway=path (and same thing with the subrender with explicit bicycle designation).

Should we check for restriction tags access=agricultural|destination or consider that they are implicit on a highway=track? Similarly, should we color in blue only tracks with bicycle=designated or bicycle=designated|yes? To me, bicycle=yes is kinda implicit, I'll go for the first option, to only represent as cycleway the tracks that are explicitely designated for bicycles.

[Phyks]

Does anyone have ideas/opinions on what the render of a highway=track would be?

Here are my thoughts so far:

• highway=track as per the wiki : The tag highway=track is used for minor land-access roads that are not considered part of the general-purpose road network [1]. Track roads are mostly used for agriculture, forestry, outdoor recreation, and similar activities on open land. Roads used for access to permanent human settlements or facilities should generally not use this tag.

• Therefore, highway=track is open to vehicles by default but should have very little traffic. Render should be comparable to cycleway=lane (therefore the dashed line at the moment) or bike roads in the city. However, dashed lines can also convey the meaning of worst quality/worst surface (which is also a common confusion about highway=track in OSM).

• I would consider it safe to assume access=agricultural|destination as being implicit on the tracks, from the wiki description of highway=track and from the default access restrictions. Same for bicycle=yes.

• I don't get the meaning of explicit bicycle=designated on a highway=track?

⇒ Maybe a middle ground would be to render highway=track with explicit bicycle=designated or access=agricultural|destination as if they were tagged as highway=path?

[waterced]

⇒ Maybe a middle ground would be to render highway=track with explicit bicycle=designated or access=agricultural|destination as if they were tagged as highway=path?

This is what I think would be the solution, I think highway=track & bicycle=designated would be a sufficient condition, let's display as if it was a highway=path & bicycle=designated|yes, with the same surface<->dash rules.

I don't get the meaning of explicit bicycle=designated on a highway=track?

In my previous post, I put a streetview picture of a track that was chosen to be an official bike itinerary by local authorities, even though agricultural traffic is authorized, and materialized accordingly with signs. Such a way deserves bicycle=designated and a prefered rendering because it is expected to be more suitable for bikes than any random track in the countryside.

[Phyks]

This is what I think would be the solution

I'll let this issue open a bit more to gather further feedbacks before implementation.

In my previous post, I put a streetview picture of a track that was chosen to be an official bike itinerary by local authorities, even though agricultural traffic is authorized, and materialized accordingly with signs.

I'm not sure to agree, if the track is part of an official bike itinerary, the itinerary should be tagged. And it will convey naturally a special render as a bicycle route?

[waterced]

Indeed, yes if a track is part of an official itinerary, it can be part of a relation which it make it more visible. But regardless of wether there is an official itinerary, some tracks are explicitely signed as cycleways, even though they are not part of any 'official itinerary'. The only thing preventing us to tag them as highway=cycleway is wiki recommandations. Because highway=cycleway should be left for highways without motor vehicles. However, considering the low traffic involved, it seems reasonnable to me to display these tracks similarly to cycleways in CyclOSM. Hence my suggestion.

[quasart]

When there are many tracks in an area, and only one is optimised for bicycle, it would indeed be valuable to highlight it.

Displaying them as cycleways sounds a good way to keep the map easy to read

Le 26 juin 2024 22:56:10 GMT+02:00, waterced @.***> a écrit :

Indeed, yes if a track is part of an official itinerary, it can be part of a relation which it make it more visible. But regardless of wether there is an official itinerary, some tracks are explicitely signed as cycleways, even though they are not part of any 'official itinerary'. The only thing preventing us to tag them as highway=cycleway is wiki recommandations. Because highway=cycleway should be left for highways without motor vehicles. However, considering the low traffic involved, it seems reasonnable to me to display these tracks similarly to cycleways in CyclOSM. Hence my suggestion.

-- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/cyclosm/cyclosm-cartocss-style/issues/665#issuecomment-2192612966 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: @.***>