Mapping of ramp with steps

Help and support
, , ,
1

How would you map this ramp or stairs?

The previous mapping was:

handrail=yes
highway=steps
incline=down
segregated=no
surface=concrete
ramp:bicycle=yes

According to the German Wiki (DE:Key:ramp - OpenStreetMap Wiki), paths that are primarily ramps should be mapped as “highway=footway” and “incline=*” rather than “highway=steps” and “ramp=yes”. In this case, the steps would be omitted entirely.
My main issue with the current mapping is that Komoot shows that you might need to carry your bike, but that is not the case here. I should also mention, that this section is along the EuroVelo 5 main bike route. In my opinion, it should be mapped more towards biking than walking.
The total width is around 2,4m, the ramp part 1,05m and the stair part 1,35m.

My proposal would be:

handrail=yes
highway=footway
incline=down
segregated=no
surface=concrete
wheelchair=yes

However, as previously mentioned, the steps would be omitted in this case.

Looking forward to your suggestions.

2

For me these are stairs with a ramp, especially as the stairs are wider than the ramp.

Changing this just because a bike route passes here and a router has problems realizing that a ramp is present seems wrong to me.

If you stick to the wiki it says

Rampen, die von Radfahrern befahren werden können (und dürfen), sind eigenständige Wege und sollten wie bereits oben erwähnt daher auch separat erfasst werden.

so the ramp should be mapped as a separat way.

But whatever you decide: Do not take the steps away.

6 Likes
3

My reading of the (English) wiki is that ramp=yes should be added, and that ramp:bicycle and other ramp: keys are intended to be used to provide additional detail alongside the ramp key. It’s possible that Komoot expects this, but I don’t know.

The proposed alternative tagging gives no indication to pedestrians that they will have to use steps (or else walk on the ramp where there are likely to be conflicts with cyclists). It also gives no indication that bicycles are allowed on the footway. Overall it seems it might lead to even more routing issues than the current tagging.

I don’t think being part of a long distance cycle network should take priority over tagging for local users, both cyclists and pedestrians.

So you could try adding ramp=yes (but note that apps like Komoot might take a while to reflect any changes), or add ramp=separate to the steps and draw the ramp separately as @Fjellrev said.

1 Like
4

You might also consider adding stroller=no, wheelchair=no, and wheelchair:description=*

5

If possible please also add step_count=* which together with the way length contains a hint as to step dimensions

6

I feel it would be easiest for data consumers to handle if the ramp and stairs were mapped separately with two different ways

1 Like
7

it is not a path that is primarily ramp

8

in this way:

1 Like
9

It’s a bit hard ti see how steep the ramp is. If it isn’t too steep for most cyclists to cycle up, then I’d map it separately as a cycleway. If it is too steep so most cyclists would have to dismount (the presence of steps for the pedestrian part suggests this), then it was correctly mapped, although I wouldn’t add segregated=no and would add ramp:stroller=yes as the ramp seems wide enough for strollers (and it implies ramp:bicycle=yes)

10

It would also need to be signed as cycleway (being within signed bicycle route does not make it cycleway)

11

Thanks for all of your suggestions!!

I have now modelled it like this:

OpenStreetMap
OpenStreetMap650×596 81.6 KB

With these tags for the steps:

handrail=yes
highway=steps
incline=down
ramp=separate
step_count=17
surface=concrete

And these tags for the ramp:

bicycle=designated
foot=designated
handrail=yes
highway=path
incline=-15%
surface=concrete

If you have any additional suggestions, please let me know!

3 Likes
12

tourism=artwork+artwork_type=mural for the painted steps? :D

3 Likes