abandoned rail tunnel used as a foot and cyclepath

Dear all!

I haven’t found in the forum an answer to my following question:

How do I tag a tunnel of an abandoned railtrack which is is now used as a foot and cyclepath?

Thanks for your help!



name=[tunnel name if there is one, otherwise trail name]

Other people may have their own favorite tags to add, but these are the basics.

This would leave foot out.

As I said, others have their own favorites. highway=cycleway implying foot=no, when every other value of highway below motorway doesn’t, seems very silly, and in fact the wiki says that only in Germany is foot=no implied.

highway=footway implying bicycle=no, when every other value of highway below motorway doesn’t, seems very silly too :wink:

Isn’t Foot=no the default value for highway=cycleway?

Not really. Laws differ greatly, but I believe the most common ones allow pedestrians (walking against traffic if there’s no sidepath) and cyclists on all highways unless there are overriding safety concerns (generally motorways), while bicycles are a type of vehicle and should stay off the sidewalk, at least in congested areas. As you go up the rough hierarchy of vehicles, cars are allowed on almost all highways, but not on footways or cycleways, and trucks are not allowed on many streets (except for local delivery).

(By the way, it would actually imply bicycle=walk; I believe getting off your bike and walking alongside is allowed everywhere that walking is permitted. Otherwise you couldn’t take your new bike out of the downtown bike shop.)

In other words, walking is the most basic form of transportation, so it would logically be allowed on lower classes of highway. But cycling is somewhat higher, in that it uses a vehicle, and so it, along with other vehicle uses, may be banned from the lowest classes.

I’m going by http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway.

I fully agree on your comments, no questions. I just wanted to highlight that your proposed tagging would exclude pedestrians (in OSM terms) as cycleway’s default value for foot is no.

…which says "The highway=cycleway indicates that the used way is mainly or exclusively for bicycles. " and my link shows that at the OSM default value for cycleway is foot=no. I agree that most ways used by cyclists would be fine for pedastrians too. However, as you mentioned, there are instance where cycle-only ways exist in reality. By setting the default value foot=no for cycleways in OSM it seems that cycleway should be used in such cases. You know, we Germans are sticklers and terms like cyclway and footway leave much room for interpretation. So we don’t like it. :wink: A translation with some possible expressions in local languages makes it even worse. Back to topic. Keeping your example …I would suggest to add a foot=yes to revert the default value.

My suggestion would be: highway=path, foot=yes (designated if it is the case), bicycle=yes(designated), tunnel=yes and may I ask if the rail tracks are still there? If not, I am not sure if I would tag railway=abandoned. But that’s only how I would tag it and I don’t want to say that my way is right.

Thanks & Regards

Looking at the routing wiki, the defaults vary by country. The UK’s is usefully documented as “The defaults do not apply. Someone who cares can fix this up.”

The international default (whatever that is) does seem to be that foot=no but most of the countries listed seem to allow it, making it a strange default.

The default on the highway=cycleway page is foot=yes and lists only Germany as an exception.

As usual, what a mess! Sigh.

I don’t understand why a cycle-/footway should be tagged as railway (even if it was a railwaytrack in the past). It would make sense if there is something which formerly was a railwaytrack, but is not used anymore (not even as a footpath).

railway=abandoned is a sort of historical tag that just says “there was a railway here”. railway=disused means that there are still tracks.