Classification of Cycle Paths

Yes I understand and JOSM presets do not help either.

A dedicated cycleway : highway=cycleway
A combined cycleway/footway: highway=path
A dedicated footway: highway=footway

I guess EvanE is right when he writes "Because of this uncertainty people startet to use highway=path together with explicitly
stating the access rights. " JOSM could not decide between cycleway and footway so decided to take… “path” :confused: Does not make sense to me.

I guess the English wiki is quite clear on what a path is.

It’s a lot better then my German :wink:

highway=path does not imply an unpaved surface. That’s just one of several subjective interpretations people have tacked onto the value later (and it’s not universally accepted). By design, “path” combined with explicit access tags was supposed to replace the footway, cycleway and bridleway values entirely.

Those occurences of highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=designated for combined cycleway/footway follow this originally documented intention of the tag. But with said proposal being partially (but not entirely…) rejected, many mappers sticking to the traditional tags, and alternative interpretations emerging over time, there are now several different styles of expressing the same thing.

Well, due to all the confusion about what the highway values mean, the only safe solution is to tag surface and access rights explicitly…

The problem seems to me (not only in Germany) that there are explicit tags for pedestrian and bicyle only, but ambiguities for dual use. I’m not sure whether the approach used in JOSM preset is that wrong. The first sentence for path is: “A non-specific or shared-use path.”
Using path only contradicts the intuitive use of it for unpaved ways outside residential areas.
There is a corresponding disagreement whether to use footway for hiking trails in the wilderness only used by pedestrians.

In Germany there are different cycleways:

  1. cycleways with the blue sign, where you have to cycle (by law), instead the parallel road.
  2. cycleways without any sign, or with a white painted bicycle on the ground. There you can cycle if you want (cycling on the parallel road is also allowed)

1: highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated
2: highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes

The bicycle=designated(/yes) is added, to differ those both ways.

It is a bit confusing about combined foot- and cycleways. I don’t not use path. I choose the best match way. If the way is made for cyclists and suitable, i choose cycleway.

At least, I wonder why we need the implication bicycle=designated? I think it is better to tag the access tags separately from the type of way! This is also the reason why I don’t think a path + bicycle=designated is the same as a cycleway. I think a footway is a more specific path, and a cycleway a more specific path (or footway). I know this is not common on OSM, but it would be nice.

A highway=footway/cycleway may be a way intended for walking resp. cycling but may be not marked by a traffic sign (in the current case for germany a blue round sign with bicycle and/or pedestrian).
Tagging footway/cycleway=designated tell others the way is marked with a traffic sign which has some legal implications.

For a cycleway without pedestrian (and for footways without cyclist) highway=cycleway (resp. highway=footway) is the prefered tagging.
With the ambiguity concerning combined cycle- and footways tagging highway=path + bicycle=designated + foot=designated is in widespread use.
With this example some people think, that always using highway=path for ways below roads is a better way expressing things.

Edbert (EvanE)


Are these really cycleways? I mean no.

Cycleway implies designated (English Wiki). German Wiki differs as often.

bicycle=yes is IMHO nonsens. Is often used to mark other ways with a bicycle route. This is not correct.

Do you know “Schutzstreifen”? And there are other cycleways, without a sign (because in germany don’t exist a sign for a cycleway without the strict law: you have to cycle there). So sometimes a bicycle painted on the ground. A sidewalk with no sign, but the half of the way paved in red color (cycleway-color in germany), it is a cycleway too (where you can cycle)!

I know! But it is better without the implication, because of the different access-rules i explained above.

It is not nonsens! With the implication we need it… The bicycle=yes overwrite the designated to set the correct access tag. This is why I say: the implication is nonsense!

**Why is highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes correcter than highway=cycleway? I don’t understand. **

Sorry for some text in German.

Is used sometimes to say that the tagging of the way is o.k.
All the ways of a bicycle route has this tag.
This kind of tagging is false.

I don’t understand, why experienced mappers offers all the tagging possibilities for e.g. cyleways instead of prefering one, to reduce the chaos in OSM.

We seem to have 2 discussions going.

  1. What’s the best way to tag a combined cycleway/footway?
  2. Why and when to add a bicycle=yes/designated to a highway=cycleway

What’s the best way to tag a combined cycleway/footway?

I aggree that a path does not mean that it is unpaved but… I think most routers will interpret this as unpaved when there is no surface tag. The same goes for cycleway. Most routers will interpret a cycleway without surface tag as paved. So in order to keep things as simple as possible I still suggest to tags these combined cycleway/footway as

A: highway=cycleway + foot=designated (or)
B: highway=footway + bicycle=designated

I prefer A because in many countries it is OK to walk on cycleways where it is not OK to cycle on footways. As a foreigner I don’t know if it is allowed to walk on a cycleway in Germany (but I have seen many do it :wink: ) If the designated tag is missing I think A will give the best results in most routers/renderers.

I aggree that eg a : highway=path + bicycle=designated + foot=designated + surface=asphalt is not “completely wrong” for a normal combined cycleway/footway but… I find it confusing and not neccesary. If we would use the simpeler: highway=cycleway + foot=designated
most routers/renderers will interpret this OK (even without the surface tag)

Why and when to add a bicycle=yes/designated to a highway=cycleway

I do not remember seeing option 2 in Germany (how do I recognise a cycleway without a sign?) but… i guess in NL we have more or less the same situation. We have 3 types of cycleways:

1 cycleway were you may cycle but you do not have to. In case there is a parralel road you may also use this. Moped and mofa are not allowed on this cycleway.

Common tagging: highway=cycleway + mofa=no ( which implies a Moped = no). Parallel road does not need extra tagging or maybe just a bicycle=yes

2 cycleway that has to be used. In case there is a parralel road you may NOT use this. Moped is not allowed but mofa is allowed on this cycleway.

Common tagging: highway=cycleway + moped=no ( which implies a Moped = no). Parallel road gets a bicycle=no

3 Combined cycleway for bicycles and moped. In case there is a parralel road you may NOT use this. This goes for bicycles, mofas and mopeds.

Common tagging: highway=cycleway + moped=designated ( which implies a Mofa=designated). Parallel road gets a bicycle=no (and a moped=no but this is very often forgotten because we have more cycling mappers then moped-mappers :wink: )

Here’s an example of all these three types of cycleways om a mapnik map. (wait a few seconds till the ways show up. clicking the way will give you OSM tagging)

As you can see there is no= bicycle=yes or a bicycle=designated on a highway=cycleway.

If a legal status means different access tags I would say… OK map the acces tags but if in practice there is no difference between the 2 then why add the bicycle=yes/designated tag? Which renderer or router uses this information? This still seems redundant to me.

I am not in favour off mapping legal issues in OSM unless these have a practical use in rendering/routing etc.

Are there any practical differences between the 2?

It isn’t (except where explictly allowed or to cross it (like a regular street)).

I could have guessed since you have combined cycleways/footways. In NL it is allowed to walk on cycleways unless there is a sidewalk/footway next to it. Goes to show that we’re a long way from a uniform Europe :wink:

Yes, that is a problem in Germany. In past all cycleways had the blue circle sign. Now we have also ways without the sign. But we don’t have any other sign, only the painted bicycle symbol or a colored part on a footway.

In Germany there are some options, that you can cycle on the road even if there is a sign like at your No. 2:

  • You can choose to cross a junction on road or cycleway.
  • If the cycleway is impassible.
  • If you have a bicycle which is more wide then normal.
  • etc

I think this is similar in other countries!? So in Germany it is wrong to tag the road with bicycle=no! Bicycle=no is only tagged at

To tag something at the road would be nice for routers, but bicycle=no is wrong by my mind.

I think it is better, to separate the highway tag from integrated access tags. If we use “designated” for a hard restricted way like No.2, and “yes” for a way where cycling is allowed (No.1) we can connect the sign with access tags and the law together and reverse.

I know that in France there are a quadratic blue sign is similar to your example from No. 1

But still… what is the practical difference between the two? different acces tags? If not… then why map them differntely? Only because one has a blue sign and the other does not? I do not think that this is a good idea. OSM is international so I think it is a good idea to stay away form country specific tagging unless there is a very good reason to do so.

I disaggree completely. Why are only roads with this sign tagged as bicycle=no when in practice there are also other roads that are forbidden for cyclist. In NL we have more or less the same situation. Not all roads that are forbidden for cyclists have this sign (wide velomobiles e.g. are allowed on the road unless there is this bicycle-forbidden sign) but that does not mean we do not tag others roads with bicyle=no. How should a router/renderer tell the difference if we don’t tag this info in OSM. I know… you could say that a road is forbidden for cyclist if there is a cycleway with bicycle=designated next to it …but …how far away from the road is this then? We can not have all routers/renderers guess how far from each others the road and cycleway have to be so to keep things simple (and universal) we just add a bicyle=no to all roads where a bicycle is forbidden. I hope most Germans will do the same.

NB for special wide bicycles (like velomobiles) a new tag could be used… something like= “Velomobile=yes/no”.

  • bicycle=yes => a cyclist is allowed to use this way
    e.g. a shared use way
  • bicycle=designated => the way is marked with a traffic sign.
    a cyclist is legally obligated to use this way
    others are not allowed to use this way
    (if not signd explicitly otherwise)

I think this difference exists in many countries, if they have cycleways at all.
The tagging is international, but legal implication might slightly vary by country.

bicycle=no, expresses never to use this road with a bicyle.
To tagg bicycle=no on every road with an adjactend cycleway would be wrong. There are occasions where you must / are allowed use the road instead the cycleway:

  • the cycleway is impassable (snow, debris, obstacles, construction, …)
  • the cycleway does not lead to your destination
    (e.g. a crossing is not reachable from the cycleway)
  • a group of cyclist is allowed to use the road instead of the cycleway
    (this might depend on loacl legislation)

If you tagg a road with bicycle=no you are (under any circumstances) not allowed to use this road with a bicycle. But this is perfectly wrong if the road ist not marked with a traffic sign stating “never use a bicycle”.
Please don’t try to urge german Mapper to use your wrong NL tagging practice.

PS: There sould be no problems with router, for they should allways prefere cycleways. No need to look for a nearby road.

Edbert (EvanE)

@EvanE: +1

One disadvantage of the bicycle=no Tagging is that it can produce subtile errors like this one:,53.24343&end=8.17287,53.24061&pref=Bicycle&lang=en&noMotorways=false&noTollways=false

Here the bicycle=no on the main road prevents the ability for cyclists to cross the road at this point.


Well …thanks for clearing this. I thought that in Germany (like in NL) there was a law that forbids cyclist to ride their bicyle on this road when there is a cycleway (blue shield with bicycle) next to the road (in all situations) . If I understand you correctly it is still allowed to cycle these roads (in some suituations) . In that case ofcourse a bicycle=no would be wrong although one might argue about what is the best tagging. Tagging the mayority of the situatioins versus all possible exeptions . All I am saying is that IF it is not allowed to cycle a road just add a bicyle=no so no router/renderer will make a mistake. And … I am not urging you to use NL tagging practice (which is not so wrong for our situation :wink: ) . I am just trying to understand German mapping practice (and why it is confusing when it comes to cycleways)

Sorry but I do not agree. If I ask a router to serve me the shortest possible route I still l hope it will direct me over roads that are allowed cycling on. Not just cycleways.

I’m not familiair wit this situations but… the routing would have been the same even if the Raifaissenstrasse has a “bicycle forbidden” sign. The problem here seems to be a mapping error which seems to fail to connect the “Moorweg” and “An der Brucke” in such a way that routing goes OK. If the Bing image is correct i would have used 2 seperate ways connecting these 2 roads. A bicycle=no on the Raifaissenstrasse would in that case not interfere routing.

You did understand correctly. I think the biggest problem with cycleway-tagging in germany is that most people don’t know those differences. So even if there would be an clear definition on how to tag them, mappers would also have to learn to tell these. Also any definition about this would either make more than 50% of the cycleways in germany tagged wrongly or required an additional tag (but maybe both of them would be better than the current situation).

Besides that, there are people out there who want to avoid suchs streets, where they would have to use a Segregated cycle facility (Radverkehtsanlage) (but Cycleways without an nearby street would be acceptable to some of them).

In this example one might have mapped it in a simpler way, wich connects “Moorweg” and “An der Brucke” directly.
But the problem of two crossing with a small offset remains and is not uncommon in reality and our data, since we have good aerial imagery.

Edbert (EvanE)

BTW: This is another argument for separate the access tag from cycleway: a mapper can add a cycleway and if (s)he know the sign/law, (s)he can also add bicycle=*. If not, the next mapper can add this tag.

If I ride a special bike, in NL all bicycle=no tagging on road is wrong. It is better to introduce a new tag! (…instead use the same tag for different sign/law.)

Tagging the nearby road additional to the cycleway would be nice for routers: If I don’t like to cycle on a cycleway, i can ignore those roads with new bicycle tagging.