You didn’t mention me these 2 situations like in links from your comment. Yo were reverting separation to 2 lanes. I asked you for curbs I missed to add. I will check for more places like this.
Mapping separated footways or cycleways along central street as one tagged line versus mutiple lines
@theDM I’m sorry, there are a lot of people involved and giving out their ideas yet you have given none.
I have precisely described all problematic spaces this thread is describing, yet you have focused only on those examples where it’s not very relevant.
Contribute. There are two different layouts to map:
I map it to show the difference, you delete it, so now it looks like this for both scenarios:
This appears to be here in OSM.
There is some physical separation on the crossing itself (for the traffic light poles). I guess that some mappers might draw the cycle and foot crossings separately, even though the people that you were arguing with did not see separation there. In one direction there is a fence. There’s no physical separation on the northeast side of here, or on the southeast or southwest sides.
What’d I’d suggest that you do is map that area until you are happy with it on the dev server. You can create a separate account there. You won’t get rendered tiles from it but people can look at the data. When you’ve done that, come back here and we can all have a look.
I’m guessing that it might look like your changeset from earlier, and it does seem to me that parts of what you added there simply do not exist.
OpenStreetMap is a shared project - everyone has to work together to create the best map. Often we’ll discuss the best way to do things, and sometimes you’ll find yourself putting forward a point of view that no-one else shares. When this happens, you need to take a step back and ask yourself why “everyone” holds a point of view that you do not share. Often, it might be that other people know something that you may not (another example of this was in the pedestrian area thread, where several people with some knowledge of the problem space where trying to help you understand why what you were suggesting would not work).
1 Like
Quite often in my experience as a bicycle advocate, it’s because “everyone” is biased in the same way. There is a strong car bias in society and in OSM, and it’s difficult to voice opinions that somehow go against the car centric nature of things.
Unless the arguments are strong in themselves, the fact that “everyone” thinks in a certain way is not a good indicator of the correctness of their position, IMO. I prefer to look closely at the arguments than to look at the number of people who agree.
4 Likes
(apologies for wandering slightly offtopic here, but) I absolutely agree that there is a strong car bias in society. It’s less true about OSM - two of the six maps on osm.org are cycle-oriented, and a glance at these forums finds lots of cycling advocates.
What this dispute seems to be about is not so much whether cycle infrastructure should be shown separately, but whether pedestrian infrastructure that is adjacent from cycle infrastructure and not physically separated from it should also be shown separately.
One side of the dispute has shown photographs of shared but segregated cycle/pedestrian infrastructure that I believe “most people in OSM” would map as one line rather than two.
The other side has linked to Google Street View to show a crossing where cyclists and pedestrians are physically separated - I believe “most people in OSM” would accept that mapping that as two lines is a better representation of the physical situation on the ground. Unfortunately that GSV link also showed lots of not physically separated shared but segregated cycle/pedestrian infrastructure that “most people in OSM” would map as one line rather than two.
The answer is likely to be a compromise. I suspect that @Yog_Sot needs to accept the pictures above can best be mapped as one line with segregated=yes (although perhaps mappers from the Netherlands might see “a cycleway with a sidewalk” - but still one line). The other side of the argument, and specifically @theDM , the author of 163373515 needs to accept that there are some (few**) places with physically separated infrastructure that are best mapped with two or more lines.
** of the links I’ve seen so far - I’ve never been to this area of (or anywhere in) Poland
As i have shown in the very begging starting this discussion, footways are adjecent to a car highway and yet there is even a tag that you add to the highway when you do so: sidewalk=separate
But when it is highway=cycleway, you are told that you can’t.
Yeah, that’s a huge car bias.
Throw bikes and pedestrians together and let em do whatever.
– don’t give information about precise crossings
– don’t tell sight impaired people where they can walk without a collision
I have given multiple examples and arguments, but people who dislike it, didn’t prove any of em wrong. They have given no solutions and refuse to map any of those details, but delete em instead creating ambiguous router interpretation.
I have also described in detail when mapping a one-liner is perfectly clear with a right set of tags
Take a closer look how many people actually clicked links to the examples i have shown (clicks are detected). How they can they express their opinion if they idn’t even look? Seriously.
If you possibly can, see that maybe you can add this saved session yourself: karwiny bike infrastructure.joz - Google Drive i shared it under this link, its: karwiny bike infrastructure.joz
I don’t know how i can upload it myself, please help out.
You are mixing two different situations there. It has been explained to You on Polish forum multiple times. A kerb is a psychical separation, most of Polish sidewalks are raised that’s why they are mapped separately. Still, some people would argue they shouldn’t be.
If the sidewalk is just paint, mapping it as different line would be a mistake.
It translates 1 to 1 for cycleways. If it just a line painted over a street - You don’t draw another line. If it is raised, separated by grass etc. You draw a line.
It’s the exact same rule for cycleways and footways. I assume You are mixing them up because in Poland not-raised sidewalks are really rare so it’s also rare to see a sidewalk tagged on the main road. It’s most likely so rare that most of Polish mappers do not even consider mapping that way as a possibility.
No, you’re not paying attention
You’re allowing this to happen:
Yourself you did not explain how to map any of those and you don’t even try. Instead you’re arguing how others don’t care eighter and want it to stay that way.
Merely repeating “I am right and everyone else is wrong” will not convince anyone of your arguments.
That looks like a bunch of data saved from the live server? My guess is that that’d be quite hard to do directly because lots of underlying data is missing. I’d suggest just using iD - it doesn’t need to be detailed.
Replies like this will not persuade anyone to your point of view. If you’re unable to even try and come to some sort of compromise then the DWG (here, that’s me) will have to enforce the other group of people’s point of view.
I absolutely don’t want to do that and would much rather than you would actually listen to what people are saying.
take a look at this: karwinydev.joz - Google Drive
This is new copied geometry, with no history, so should work for you to upload?
Really, it’s like 4 hours of mapping the details. If you ask me to map everything all over again from iD, along with streets, well, I have been trying.
yeah, well, other people can “merely repeat”, but when opposed I gotta do better, I know the drill.
There were numerous other people liking what i have proposed, but yeah, I have started the thread and put myself in the spotlight. Could have been a mistake?
It’s not - it contains a bunch of data from the live server such as node 1433303600. And I have to say, I really don’t have time to “visualise your thoughts” like this, especially when there’s a perfectly reasonable alternative (iD) even if it’s not straightforward to Oauth2 to the dev server.
none of that data has any IDs, but if its a prob for you as well, there some fast examples:
-
cyclist have to yeld and tactile pavement is continuous
Way History: 4307052943 | OpenStreetMap -
while here pedestrians have to yeld and no tactile pavement
Way History: 4307052939 | OpenStreetMap
you can compare with data on live server, it is completly unclear which one is separate, where is the tactile info
1 Like
You can use highway=crossing without spliting ways. It’s the exact same methods that we use to map crossings if sidewalk is mapped as part of main road not a separated line.
You can also always split only the “controversial” part, not the whole shared cycleway eg. only at junction. This method was shown earlier, by @balchen.
1 Like
That’s not what he’s saying. He says “I’ve given the argument and the evidence in support of my argument. Everyone else just says no.”
And based on this thread alone, I agree. No one has argued why these segments can’t be mapped using two lines if one so pleases to put in the effort.
Some have stated that paint is not enough separation. The photos clearly show different surfaces and physical demarcation. There’s also the statement that only a difference in elevation will suffice. Why?
Like I’ve said before:
This is done on carriageways all the time here. We also do it on cycleways when the paint is based on a legal separation and not merely a suggestion – exactly like for carriageways.
I think this sums it up quite nicely:
Like that?
So how do you know if it’s
– cycleway crossing the sidewalk?
or
– sidewalk crossing the cycleway?
Please, I encourage, take a try, prove your argument and dismiss mine.
It’s been 7 days since i presented the case and noone did, yet some disagree.
Globally, that is very much the exception rather than the rule. A dual-carriageway road with two lanes in each direction would be mapped as 2 OSM ways (assuming there is a physical separation in the middle), not four**.
There absolutely will be exceptions - I’ve previously mentioned this section of road where it would make sense to map the footway and cycleway as separate on part of it (though no-one has done that yet) - there is a bit of physical separation, and the signage on part is not for “a segregated cycleway” but separate paths.
Looking at the photographs posted earlier I see nothing that says that it is not allowed for a pedestrian to cross the road (when the next pedestrian crossing might be a long distance away). To do that they’d have to cross the cycleway, motor traffic lanes and the cycleway at the other side. Some human-hostile jurisdictions like the USA may enforce laws like this; most civilised countries do not.
** Edit: this was a typing error - the original version was “two” (which makes no sense) not “four”.
… and again I encourage you not to try and force a choice between one argument at one end of the spectrum and another argument at the other end, but to find a consensus based on what you can both can agree on.
I have politely asked to solve a puzzle, not choose argument 
Yeah, in Poland you’re forbidden to cross two carriageway on foot anywhere except a crossing.
You can’t cross a road, including a cycleway if there is a marked crossing within 100m
If you cross it outside a crossing, you have to do it perpendicular to it, can’t be at an angle, coz it’s longer and that’s forbidden.
It doesn’t help that those who put signs don’t follow rules as to how they should do it.
But yeah, even if i consider those laws silly myself, doesnt change anything. I’ve been describing it and mapping in detail as well, you can gues the outcome, since i can’t ask “force” a choice.
I didn’t follow that train of thought.
There is also no such law if there is physical separation, like a kerb or a grass verge.
You seem to have stopped short of the conclusion, though. What was the point you were making?