Distinction between shared cycle and footpaths and footpaths with cycle traffic free

[Langlaeufer]

In Germany we distinguish between
a) shared cycle-/foot paths, where pedestrians and cyclists have equal rights (sign 240 or a stand-alone 1022-10 ("cycling fee")

and
b) signed footpaths with "cycling free" (sign DE:239 (footway),1022-10 (cycling free)), where cyclists are only allowed to drive at walking speed.
+

However, in its question, Streetcomplete only knows "explizite Mitbenutzung des Bürgersteigs" (explicit sharing of the sidewalk), which is misleading and leads to incorrect tagging.

( on road axis cycleway=track, on separate line to bicycle=designated)

Expected tagging at the road axis
a) sidewalk=yes, cycleway=track, cycleway:segregated=no
b) sidewalk=yes, cyleway=no, sidewalk:bicycle=yes
(of cause you have to handle left/right/both)

on a separate way this seems to be already implemented (however, the formulations do not match perfectly the german use)
a) Shared-use path
highway=path, bicycle=designated, foot=designated, segregated=no
b) not designated for cyclists (cycling may still be allowed)
highway=footway, bicycle=yes (,foot=designated)

For more information see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren

[Langlaeufer]

BTW:
b) About the tagging of footways with "cycling fee" there is consensus.
a) The tagging of shared foot/cycle paths without sign or with stand alone "cycling free" is still controversal (bicylce=yes/designated).

[mnalis]

The background you provided looks useful. However, it would've been helpful if you followed bug template when reporting bug. Especially those two:

**How to Reproduce**
<!-- Add steps to reproduce this behavior here -->

**Expected Behavior**
<!-- Add a clear and concise description of what you expected to happen -->

As it is, I (at least) am confused what is expected outcome of this issue. I.e.:

• Is it a bug? e.g. if clicking on button named xxxx produce tagging yyyy, but instead should produce tagging zzzz?
• or maybe a text xxxx should more clearly / less ambiguously be written as qqqq so confusion is avoided?
• or is it more of a feature request? e.g. there currently exist option xxxx which produces tagging yyyy, but there should also be additional option wwww that would produce tagging zzzz?
• or, do you think this quest is not possible to be written in a way that would work for Germany, so it should be disabled there?
• or something else?

In other words, what exactly do you think needs to be changed (and how) so the problem disappears?

[Langlaeufer]

Steps to reproduce:

1. Select the bicycle overlay.
2. select a street

Here an option is missing to distinguish a) shared foot/cycleway (not segregated) and b) footway where bicycle is allowed with restrictions

Expected tagging as described in the initial post

[CaptainWilco]

We need two new options for the very common "Angebotsradweg" (traffic sign DE:239 + 1022-10), where cyclists are allowed to ride on the sidewalk (at walking speed!) if they do not want to ride on the carriageway (oneway yes/no):

sidewalk:right/left/both=yes
cyleway:right/left/both=no
sidewalk:right/left/both:bicycle=yes

The text should be: "Mitbenutzung des Bürgersteigs ist erlaubt"

The current text "explizite Mitbenutzung des Bürgersteigs" should be changed to "gemeinsamer Geh- und Radweg".

[westnordost]

In StreetComplete, you have to select "no cycleway" when encountering a sidewalk with a sign that allows bicycles on the sidewalk.

on a separate way this seems to be already implemented (however, the formulations do not match perfectly the german use)
a) Shared-use path
highway=path, bicycle=designated, foot=designated, segregated=no
b) not designated for cyclists (cycling may still be allowed)
highway=footway, bicycle=yes (,foot=designated)

You enumerate the options currently available for bike + footpaths correctly, however, the claim that "this is already implemented" is incorrect. It is actually consistent with the options for bike paths mapped on the roads:
The option "Not designated for cyclists" is shown for any highway=footway where either bicycle is missing or just yes (= neither designated nor no).

---

It is not incorrect to tag

as sidewalk=yes+ cycleway=no.

sidewalk:bicycle=yes is an additional information that is neither regarded by nor changed by StreetComplete. (If it was, it would indeed be a bug.)

See #2276 for more information.

The prerequisite for a signed "bicycles free" option to return is that it is possible to tag that the bicycle/sidewalk:bicycle restriction has been set by a sign. Currently, no tag is really established for that other than the Germany-specific traffic sign number. I outlined a suggestion for this in #4913.

[westnordost]

(See the linked tickets, this ticket adds no new information)

[Langlaeufer]

Then please at least change wording from
"explizite Mitbenutzung des Bürgersteigs" in
"gemeinsamer Rad- und Gehweg"

[westnordost]

Hmm, makes sense. I am not sure why this hasn't been the wording from the start. Will need to research this.

[westnordost]

It looks like the wording has been like this since from the beginning (2017) and not been changed since.

Back then, there existed also the "No cycleway, but cyclists are allowed on sidewalk". My guess is that this wording originated from drawing a better distinction between the two while not being country-specific.

Also, since the cycleway quest is not about what kind of path something is, but basically what kind of cycleway (if any) a street has, it makes sense to have a different wording for cycleways tagged on roads and for cycleways tagged on separately mapped sidewalk+cycleways (plus those that are not actually next to a street):

• For the former, it is "sidepath or protected bicycle lane" and
• for the latter , it is "separated bike and footpath" or "bike-only path" (depending on whether the sidewalk-part and the cycleway-part are mapped as one way or as two ways)

In other words, the context is different.

So, current English wording for sidewalk=yes + cycleway=track + cycleway:segregated=no is "explicitly shared sidewalk" (instead of "shared-use path") as the context is still the street, i.e. sidewalk/sidepath. I think this is fine, no?

Then, only the German wording needs to be changed. I suggest "explizit gemeinsamer Bürgersteig" oder "explizit gemeinsam mit Bürgersteig". "Mitbenutzung" sounds indeed a bit like that cyclists are "guests". What do you think?

[Discostu36]

I think that „Gemeinsamer Geh- und Radweg“ is the phrasing for German users that would be least likely to lead to incorrect tagging. At least from my perspective, such ways are not a „Bürgersteig“.

[westnordost]

But in this context, they are sidewalks (=Bürgersteig). I explained this above.

[Discostu36]

I don't understand your explanation. A cycleway is a cycleway, not a sidewalk, even when it's shared with pedestrians. A sidewalk is not a cycleway even when cyclists are allowed to use it (at walking speed).

[matkoniecz]

Single object can be both sidewalk and cycleway. See for example https://www.google.pl/maps/@50.0849446,19.8909939,3a,75y,200.95h,94.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn3z7jtKaKY4ZnGom4f46xg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu or https://www.google.com/maps/@56.9379867,24.0973343,3a,37.5y,4.87h,89.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD9CW2Kpma_I5oslOnADdJg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu or https://www.google.pl/maps/@50.0779463,19.8892466,3a,75y,247.4h,88.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRDV5ichRUo1wdWWgkvRBGw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

[westnordost]

The context is that it is tagged on the road as sidewalk=yes + cycleway=track + cycleway:segregated=no. This is a different context, or at least, can be a different context than highway=footway + bicycle=designated + segregated=no as the latter is not necessarily "straßenbegleitend" but the former is.

A sidewalk is a footway with separation towards the roadway usually by a kerb. Your previous comment sounds like you wouldn't call the sidewalk a sidewalk anymore only because there is a sign like this?

[Discostu36]

Your previous comment sounds like you wouldn't call the sidewalk a sidewalk anymore only because there is a sign like this?

Yes, at least in this context (the tagging of the existence of a cycleway with the cycleway tag), I wouldn't consider it a sidewalk, but a shared cycleway. But from the perspective of the sidewalk tag, I would call it a sidewalk. This maybe sounds a bit paradoxical, but I think only that way the distinction is clear enough for users.

[westnordost]

Hm, well. The (American) English name for a non-segregated foot+bike path would be "shared-use path".

What do the others think?

🎉 use "explicitly shared sidewalk" / "explizit gemeinsam mit Bürgersteig", or
🚀 use "shared-use path" / "Gemeinsamer Geh- und Radweg"

for the option that tags sidewalk=yes + cycleway=track + cycleway:segregated=no? (use emoji)

[CaptainWilco]

Thank you Tobias for taking care of this.

Is there any task in StreetComplete that asks whether cyclists are allowed to ride on the sidewalk?

[westnordost]

Alright, that looks pretty unequivocal. If the ratio doesn't change, I will change it to "shared-use path" / "Gemeinsamer Geh- und Radweg".

Is there any task in StreetComplete that asks whether cyclists are allowed to ride on the sidewalk?

No. See the last paragraph in #5059 (comment)