What does this combination of tags mean? Is it worth documenting? (It’s not mentioned on the Wiki) Has it been used to “translate” a specific traffic sign into OSM tagging, maybe something like pedestrian and cycle zone? When you map a highway=pedestrian, how do you decide between bicycle=yes and bicycle=designated?
More generally, when do you put bicycle=designated on a street? (unclassified, residential, …)
The Versatiles Colorful style renders streets with bicycle=designated differently so that makes them easy to spot (example here). In an area I am looking at, I can’t make sense of which pedestrian streets have bicycle=designated and which ones have yes. Some pedestrian streets don’t have a bicycle tag at all, and I’ve noticed that OSM-based routers make different default assumptions for biycle access on pedestrian, so adding explicit tags is probably a useful activity.
I checked the only occurrence in my area and it was a tagging mistake. Someone tagged designated instead of dismount. I don’t know if any sign explaining this tagging in German speaking countries.
I would argue that foot=designated is implied by highway=pedestrian, no need to tag it explicitly. With this sign, bicycles are allowed, so bicycle=yes. The way/area is not “the way to go” for cyclists, so it’s not bicycle=designated.
I can imagine situations where cyclists are supposed to use a pedestrian way or area. Particularly when cycling (trekking bike) in German and Italian cities I was often forced off the road onto the sidewalk or to a separate pedestrian way/area, not part of this road. Only last year’s trip in Italy we noticed that the signage for cyclists in these situations is improving, but not yet sufficient. By far.
I think this will naturally differ by country. In the U.S., we’ve taken designated to mean more or less “designed for” or “intended for” in many contexts. It’s a more holistic standard than in some other countries. If we had to strictly map bicycle=* to standard MUTCD signs, we would do something like what’s documented on the wiki:
no
yes
designated
However, this only works in theory. is relatively rare and only posted on dedicated trails or sidepaths, never in a situation where bikes share the road with traffic or where a pedestrian mall has plenty of room for all non-motorized traffic. isn’t just an access sign; it can also indicate lcn=yes, or that the street is a bike boulevard. In practice, permission for non-motorized vehicles isn’t consistently signposted, and few off-road signs adhere to any standard to begin with.
I would expect road sized structure, marked as combined footway and cycleway (either with segregation if segregated=yes or with no segregation between traffic modes if segregated=yes)
If bicycle traffic is merely allowed or exempt from ban on vehicle traffic then it bicycle=yes
Never, though if road has say sharrows/bicycle lanes then I would not remove it.
roads which normally allow cycling have implicit/default bicycle=yes. You would only need to tag this explicitly if this level of road has a different default for bicycles than the word wide defaults say. That is, insofar as you care about that.
roads wich do not normally allow bicycles could maybe have a sign to indicate an exception. That would also be bicycle=yes.
Sidepaths: the sidepath, if mapped separately, IMO is bicycle=designated if they carry a bicycle sign, doesn’t matter which one. Assuming that the sign means you are supposed to cycle on the sidepath (probably to make it alive to the other end…).
Dedicated trails: how do you know the trail is dedicated? If the sign tells you the trail is dedicated to cycling, it’s bicycle=designated, even if other transports are allowed as well.
The bike route addition, is that for one continious way, or can it indicate a sequence of ways, which may be highways above path level?
In most U.S. jurisdictions, bicycles are technically allowed by default on any public highway, road, street, track, or dedicated path unless otherwise noted – just like pedestrians. If cyclists aren’t allowed on a freeway, a sign will say so. In many places, bicycles and kick scooters aren’t even regulated as vehicles, but rather as devices. The rules on sidewalks are more complicated and vary by neighborhood and the cyclist’s age. The rules on public transit vehicles depend on the operator.
So I think what you’re suggesting is that bicycle=yes should only ever appear on highway=footway and route=bus/train/ferry, and foot=yes should only ever appear on route=bus/train/ferry. This is so far removed from actual practice that it’s rather pointless to even consider it at this point.
Sidewalks normally don’t have their own signs of any sort, not even to clarify access. Sidepaths and dedicated trails do have miniature traffic signs just like streets. However, the main purpose of the signs is to keep certain traffic (like motorized traffic) off of the path.
When there are signs explicitly “dedicating” a trail to certain activities, it’s almost always in the context of prohibiting other activities or some other rule. Thus, this park rules sign uses the same kind of icon to encourage cycling, hiking, and horseback riding; prohibit motorcycling and hunting; and advertise wheelchair accessibility:
while this sign establishes a system of priorities among trail users, as a courtesy:
On this sign, “route” just means a recommendation of one street over another, not necessarily anything you can follow from end to end. It’s sort of like an advertisement that the city hasn’t forgotten about cyclists (even if they have).
I don’t know why not. If all highways allow bicycles and pedestrians, you only have to tag the exceptions where this does not conform to the world wide defaults. If the US have other defaults and don’t care if the global data users display and route right, then you only have to tag the exceptions that do not conform to US defaults that data users apply.
What is so different about actual practice? Do data users not apply defaults, or all differently? Then you have a serious problem, because you have to tag every detail explicitly.
Then the sign signifies a simple yes. We don’t have a value for preferred or promotional. Maybe a toppled layer-tag could work?
The way could still be designated because of other signs or markings, but I get the feeling cycling is not that big in America. How many bicycle stands does an average city train station in your favorite territory have?
I am not assuming exacltly that, no doubt the list of differences is endless, but I’m sure there is some level of covariation, a strava-ish dense line. Would the majority route pedestrians over a highway=path without further tags?
Would the majority route a bicycle over a tertiary? Maybe they apply different weights, that’s fine.
Yes? But clearly it isn’t a binary supported/unsupported situation, so if the very meaning of access values depends on default access values, we have not only circular reasoning but also nondeterminism to boot. Granted, it doesn’t have to be that way: a stronger system of defaults could emerge, and we could define each access value independently of its absence.
Huh, again? The meaning in OSM depends on what information we want to record and how OSM decides to put this in values.
Default values (fallback vaues) are assumed by the data user, when no explicit value is given. (The only other option is to ignore the object.) The fallback value then has the same meaning as if it were tagged explicitly.
(For those who are wondering, this thread has turned into overflow from a different thread about shared use paths that also turned into a discussion on access values.)
Good, we agree on that much. I also agree with this, more or less:
Ignoring the issue of defaults for a moment, this means that bicycle=yes appears on any independent roadway that lacks an explicit sign to the contrary – everything from freeways to dirt tracks. Maybe even highway=steps.
Now, if we reapply this nebulous notion of worldwide defaults, most of those bicycle=yes tags probably go away – great. And on something like a highway=motorway where cyclists are allowed, there will also be signs explicitly warning of the presence of cyclists, because motorists may not be expecting them. That would probably be bicycle=designated in your book. By process of elimination, that leaves bicycle=yesonly for the odd edge cases where daredevils are free to assume personal risk:
This is rather disconnected from how most software interprets that tag and how most mappers are introduced to that tag.
That’s an interesting question, I was coincidentally thinking of something similar in the context of a particular stretch of a long-distance hiking route in Ireland that I still shudder to remember. It has these characteristics:
A narrow two-lane rural public road with normal vehicle access, no sidewalk, no shoulder, no verge, 50kph speed limit, poor visibility on bends, and no lighting. No physical/design features aimed at pedestrians. All perhaps pointing towards foot=yes rather than foot=designated?
Waymarks and guideposts directing hikers along the road, maintained by the official national body responsible for sports and recreation including hiking, and backed up by the route description on the official website. Points towards foot=designated? But then again, the official body for sports is not the official body for road signage or traffic law, and hiking guideposts have no legal force. So maybe still foot=yes?
Warning signs aimed at drivers indicating the presence of pedestrians (official road traffic signs in this case). In line with your question above, maybe this indicates foot=designated? Or does it matter that they are “negative” signs for drivers, not “positive” signs for walkers?
A highway=motorway would not be bicycle=designated just because motorists are warned. If it had a cycleway sign allowing free access to all the lanes, it could be designated - but I don’t think that is a viable combination. At most it is a motorway allowing bicycles for a short stretch, say a bridge, I have seen such situations in Italy. I haven’t looked for traffic signs ending and restarting the motorway, though. That’s what happens in Nederland: if a motorway that can’t have level crossings nears, say, a roundabout, they simply end the motorway before the roundabout and let it begin again after the roundabout. And it’s also common that a cycleway is ended before and restarted after a crossing road.
bicycle=yes says bicycles are allowed, nothing more. It won’t alter the designation as a motorway. Same as on a footway: if bicycles can use the footway, it is still a footway with bicycle=yes. If pedestrians may use the cycleway when there is no footway, it is foot=yes. If a path is signed/marked as a combined foot/cycleway, it is bicycle=designated and foot=designated. If a bridleway has a sign “cyclists and pedestrians allowed”, it is horse=designated (implicit) and bicycle=yes and foot=yes. If it has the footway sign plus the cycle sign (or combined) and a horse sign/marking, or anything that says to the people: this path is for horses, bicycles and walkers, all are designated.
esf eso
Currently, recreational route markings do not make a way designated. They often use designated paths, but also many non-designated ways, supposed to be =yes or one of the weaker yes-variants such as permissive. I know from experience hikers have little chance claiming they can use a closed section because they are following a hiking route or a router.
is relatively rare and only posted on dedicated trails or sidepaths, never in a situation where bikes share the road with traffic or where a pedestrian mall has plenty of room for all non-motorized traffic. 
isn’t just an access sign; it can also indicate 
