A new wiki page proposal highway=cyclist has been created.
I spotted it via OSM Weekly. It’s apparently not yet ready for comments on in the wiki yet, as a number of comments on the discussion page were deleted by the page author. I’m creating a topic here to give everyone a chance to discuss, and I’ll invite the proposer to comment here too.
Spotted that as well & wondered what it was about?
Really don’t think it’s going to go too far!
It’s Dutch. They have cycleways with sidewalks, services, street furniture…
See also the pictures here.
I can see if they find cycleway limiting, though I wonder, why not something like cycleway=primary, secondary, etc.?
@Tjuro Do you consider your proposal ready for comments?
No not in any way. It is not even half finished. I was under the impression that having a proposal in draft indicates that a proposal is not ready for review. However this does not seem to be the case.
Tjuro has messaged me saying he does not appreciate my comments on his draft proposal:
This proposal is still in draft status, and I am in the process of gathering foto’s of cyclist streets. I do not appreciate that you have commented on my draft proposal. I kindly ask you to not make any comments on my proposal anymore.
Clearly this is some strange new meaning of “ Please comment on the discussion page” of which I was not previously aware. 
That is because that sentence is part of the template:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Proposal_page_template
And because this was a quick draft (one edit) i did not change that.
Don’t get me wrong, i am very happy to read and address feedback. However at least give me time to complete the proposal.
Right. Maybe don’t message people saying you “don’t appreciate” comments when you have explicitly, even if accidentally, asked for comments?
In general, anything on the wiki in the public namespace is fair game. Draft it in your user space if you don’t want others to comment on it.
Well that is the thing, i did not ask for comments. That is as far as i know the RFC status for.
I did not know there is a user namespace, so that is a good tip.
Furthermore comments like “No thanks” and “Please no” are not realy helpfull. You could have tried to get some common ground. Or at least try and understand the reason behind this proposal.
Why not instead respect the proposal author’s wishes to complete the work on their draft before they request comments? The draft is in the public wiki namespace, so it’s understandable that people chose to provide feedback, but by now it should be apparent that there has been a miscommunication and the proposal is not intended to be ready for the spotlight yet.
@Tjuro I recommend you move the draft to your user namespace in the wiki to make it clear that you intend to work on it privately. If you need help with that, let me know.
Thank you,
Yes i would like to move the page. Do i rename it or copy and paste the contents?
It’s best to rename it by using the wiki’s “move page” tool. It’s available from a drop-down menu on the top right of the page:
On the dialog which opens, you select the “User” namespace and add your user name as a prefix to the title like this:
With respect, that absolutely wasn’t clear when I commented on the talk page. As I mentioned above, I spotted it via OSM weekly, and the cat was very much out of the bag about the proposal page’s existence then. As Richard previously said, the proposal page even invited discussion. You’ll also notice that my initial post was entirely neutral about the merits of the proposal.
Whether or not this proposal is “ready for comments” yet, it is absolutely clear that @Tjuro wants to make a proposal along these lines at some point in the future. It is therefore entirely reasonable to ask what led them to making this suggestion, and also to ask what mapping or data consumption problems they have based on the tags and values currently in use in OSM.
More widely, OSM documentation does suffer because the wiki contains more than a few “hobby horses” (in the Laurence Sterne sense) - people would like to see OSM tagging work in a somewhat different way and would like to persuade people that that different way has merit, in defiance of any contrary evidence. I believe that it’s important to defend the OSM wiki’s role as documentation of how people map.
No, a bicycle_road is not prohibiting cars; At least not where I live. All it sets is a maximum speed for cars and that drivers of them have to yield for cyclists AND pedestrians on the carriageway.
bicycle_road= is a legal road status, with bike priority. But highway=pedestrian can allow cars too, while it may not be a specific distinct road class. Therefore as mentioned in the original page, I find cyclestreets= can be expanded with eg =exclusive cover this.
cycleway=expressway didn’t need to invent another highway=cycle_expressway , despite being different from usual highway=cycleway . highway=living_street is a mistake that at least living_street= is fixing it, and ideally priority= should be adopted to convey the defining characteristics explicitly.
Furthermore, I’m of the opinion highway= instead of =cycleway can be used for this, as it only means cars are banned, and bikes can be allowed. If it is truly pedestrian-only, bicycle=no would be needed to ban bikes anyway. A part-time or restricted-use “pedestrian zone” may not actually have legal pedestrian priority.
=cycleway + foot= and =footway + bicycle= are already used. =pedestrian + cyclestreets=exclusive + bicycle=designated won’t be much different. The delineation between pedestrian and bikes can be added with segregated= and sidewalk= as usual.
I hope we don’t need highway=pedestrian_and_cyclist similar to =path simply because the term “Pedestrian and Cycle Zone” exists, or when pedestrian can be allowed on the roadway somehow. I’m sure they are already using =pedestrian now. Not to mention motor_vehicle=no roads that aren’t even termed as either one.
