Request for Comments: Solution proposal for the `path` issues

General talk Tagging general discussion
61

There are some sac_scale=*alpine_hiking paths mapped. The tag tells consumers that they should be aware that they may encounter scrambling (UIAA[1] grade I, II, III) sections. If your concept of “climbing” means, use of hands necessary to advance, then there are.

If your concept of “climbing” means UIAA IV and above, there should not be any mapped as path, but it is not possible to read that from the data, unless tagged with climbing:uiaa:scale e.g.

PS @dieterdreist : Here quote from the current revision of SAC mountain hiking scale:

Abgrenzung zu Hochtouren und Felsklettern – Ein wesentlicher Unterschied zwischen anspruchsvollen Alpinwanderungen, einfachen Hochtouren und leichten Felsklettereien liegt darin, dass auf einer T5/T6-Route selten bis nie mit Seil gesichert werden kann, weshalb das Gelände absolut beherrscht werden muss – was hohes technisches Können und mentale Stärke erfordert. Beispiele dafür sind sehr steile Grashänge, wegloses Schrofengelände mit schlechtem Fels oder sehr exponierte Gratpassagen. Deshalb ist Alpinwandern im oberen Schwierigkeitsbereich (T5/T6) in der Regel bedeutend anspruchsvoller als eine einfache Hochtour mit der Bewertung L (= leicht) oder eine gesicherte Klettertour im II. Grad. Aufgrund der unterschiedlichen Merkmale von Alpinwanderungen und Hochtouren lässt sich ein direkter Vergleich der Bewertungsskalen kaum anstellen, doch grundsätzlich kann eine T6-Route vergleichbare Anforderungen stellen wie manche Hochtour im Bereich WS (= wenig schwierig), in vereinzelten Fällen sogar bis ZS– (= ziemlich schwierig)

Google translation with small changes by me:

Differentiation between alpine hiking, mountaineering and rock climbing – A key difference between challenging alpine hikes, simple mountaineering tours and easy rock climbing (scrambling) is that on a T5/T6 route it is rarely or never possible to be secured with a rope, which is why the terrain must be mastered absolutely - which requires a high level of technical ability and mental strength. Examples of this are very steep grassy slopes, pathless scree terrain with poor rock or very exposed ridge passages. Therefore, alpine hiking in the upper difficulty range (T5/T6) is usually significantly more demanding than a simple mountaineering tour with the rating L (= easy) or a secured climbing tour at grade II. Due to the different characteristics of alpine hikes and mountaineering tours, a direct comparison of the rating scales is hardly possible, but in principle a T6 route can have comparable requirements to some mountaineering tours in the WS (= not very difficult) range, in isolated cases even up to ZS– (= fairly difficult)

PS: Here a picture Another sac_scale poll: T5 or T6 or beyond scale The corresponding topo files this under climbing, see https://www.bergsteigen.com/touren/klettern/traunstein-ostgrat/ in openstreetmap it is represented as a difficult_alpine_hiking (T6) path.

  1. An old rock climbing scale still in use, in Europe mostly ↩︎

1 Like
62

If there is no path for a considerable length and over difficult terrain, I am not happy either, and will delete it. But if it is a convenient connection between visible paths or a short section of low visibility in an otherwise nice path (crossing a meadow to where the visible path continues in the forest, for instance), I will be happy to have some guidance on how to cross that area and pick up the path again.

I mostly hike in the mountains of Bulgaria where I live. 90% of sac_scale have the value hiking or mountain_hiking and 45% of paths tagged with sac_scale are also tagged with trail_visibility. trail_visibility=no paths are probably over-represented in the more difficult sac_scale values, but at least 75% of trail_visibility=no paths must have one of the 2 easier sac_scale values.

63

Same here in Thailand. We have well-known routes that require navigating long, pathless stretches of dry riverbeds and mountain ridges to reach the next visible path. Apart from traces of boots, wheels, or cattle, there’s no clear indication of a path, and the best route can change by a few meters yearly after the monsoon. However, the terrain’s geometry usually suggests the best recommended path. Without these routes marked, people might still try to connect and end up on the wrong adjacent ridge or riverbed.

I get that they might not fit the typical highway=path tag for regular users, but leaving them untagged could mislead others searching for the right connection. Supporting trail_visibility=no in third-party renderers/routers still seems like the best solution to me.

3 Likes
64

I can only speak for Austria (see above). These Vienna Convention shared use paths signposted with the blue rounds in our local traffic code are filed under cycling infrastructure, see litera 11b. Funnily, the top picture in Wikipedia article on cycling infrastructure shows just the same sign.

I proposed to change the ordering on the global documentation for highway=path to show actual pictures of paths, not just traffic signs on top of its “examples” section. Here to the topic.

Openstreetmap can beat those bureaucrats any time!

2 Likes
65

The main issue here is, that highway=footway and highway=cycleway both kind of having a main usage, where my impression of the National Mall was, that there are not mainly pedestrians (except certain areas) but mainly segways and scooters :wink:

66

To make matters more complex, paper and practice and also differ. Here in Germany, pure cycleways often manifest themselves as lanes on a carriageway and as their own ways are pretty rare, only as a sidepath to a road, in fact, and only when it’s difficult for pedestrians mix with cyclists due to width constraints and a parallel (foot)way is provided.
Every other cycleway in Germany is signed as 240 (shared foot- and cycleway) and 241 (segregated foot- and cycleway) because 237 is too restrictive with out current laws. It’s particularly true if it’s paved with asphalt like a regular street which further shift it towards a way built primarily for cyclists than one built for both cyclists and pedestrians.

Now, “shared-use” path (i.e. a cycleway you can walk on) isn’t entirely comparable to a street with no sidewalk because you’re given greater rights as a pedestrian (in that you can use the whole path instead of being legally you to the edge) but in practice to the benefit of everyone, you behave like in a typical street i.e. slower traffic (i.e. pedestrians) is to the side, faster traffic (i.e. cyclists) in the middle and really, details like these also is out of scope for OSM.
The segregated kind becomes even more complex if you look at some of these paths:

  • In some of these, the cycleway itself is fairly prominent compared to the footway, such as double the size than the latter if not wider. By any measure, it’s a cycleway first, footway second.
  • If a foot- and cycleway are segregated by a kerb from each other, how would you describe it then: As a segregated “shared-use” path or as a cycleway with a sidewalk attached?

Another problem is also what consists of a “shared” path since Germany not only has the aforementioned 240 but also 239+1022-10 (footways which permits cyclists). The main difference is that, as a legal footway / pedestrian infrastructure, cyclists have to give way to pedestrians (even moreso than with the other example) and also must cycle at walking speed (akin to a pedestrian or living street) whereas a proper cycleway allows you to go as fast as you need to be.[1]
And of course, this isn’t unique to Germany either because there are many other legislations which have such sidewalks, either implicitly (such as being wide enough) or explicitly (signed as such).

Off-topic

And really, the idea of a “shared-use path” is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that something build for cyclists means that pedestrians automatically need to be excluded unless otherwise signed. In truth, many roads are built (sometimes modified if older) for cars but are legally usable for pedestrians even with a lack of footway unless explicitly signed as such.

It’s also why I’m a bit envious to the Netherlands because their cycleways permit pedestrians by default and only are forbidden to walk on if explicitly signed so or a parallel footway exists — because cycleways there are seen more as proper streets there.

  1. Not that it really matters in this discussion since the tagging thereof has been long established as highway=footway + bicycle=yes and is unlikely to change soon. ↩︎

67

You marked this as off-topic, but I think it’s quite on point, as it touches on one of the lines of thought that always seems to derail discussions about path tagging:

In its most basic sense, shared use path is a design concept about accommodating both cyclists and pedestrians with the same ribbon of pavement. It‘s about enablement and comfort, not necessarily about rights and restrictions. One can argue the concept is flawed because the two groups have fundamentally incompatible needs, or that they pose a danger to each other, or that it’s a waste of public funds, etc. But who are we to criticize the design concept as flawed, solely on the basis that it breaks our chosen data model and its assumptions about access restrictions?

The sign is not the way. To the extent that the shared use path design concept aligns with some law or sign, this is incidental to the task of identifying the path. Quirks of legislation only present a problem because we mistake a sign for what the sign symbolizes. I think there’s been a lot of confusion about shared use paths because the highway=path proposal conflated design characteristics with legal access, which naturally comes from specific laws and correlates to specific signs. Ideally, a specific sign code should be completely irrelevant to answering the question, “What is it?”

As far as I can tell, jargon terms like shared use path and multi-use trail were originally popularized in the U.S., where shared use paths are very popular, even though pedestrians are virtually never excluded from bike paths with very few exceptions. So what’s the difference between a shared use path and a bike path? Marketing. Naming. Your level of interest in urban planning. Most laypeople traditionally associate bike paths with pedestrians too, so they don’t have a problem with the fact that most are tagged as highway=cycleway (apart from the ones last touched by people who mistook the Vienna Convention signs for pretty icons).

Granted, not every country has the same situation on the ground, so it’s understandable that cycleway doesn’t scream pedestrian infrastructure to everyone. One of the issues the highway=path proposal sought to address was this bias toward cycling. (Or is it a bias in favor of pedestrians?) This isn’t a totally bad idea – it eschews a layperson’s classification, which might be too parochial, in favor of an urban planner’s more technical classification. If the proposal hadn’t tried to accomplish too much at once with a single tag, maybe mappers would’ve been able to rely more on intuition rather than pulling out the traffic sign manual.

3 Likes
68

Last I heard, almost all of highway=* in my area is shared use. I never happened over a highway=residential that was only open for a single mode of traffic.

Regarding that highway=path is in no way special. This idea clearly must come from aliens :wink:

3 Likes
69

I agree it is better than ‘path’, but cognitively it is suboptimal as it suggests priority for cyclists when there is none.

Yes, it is not considered a problem by everyone. I feel that most thinks this situation is not great, but it is hard to get precise numbers.

I doubt it. Can you have ‘service’ when all non-emergency cars are banned? Though I do not care for roads, so my knowledge of car-tags is very limited. I meant the very high-end of ‘path’, those tarmac paved ways pictured on the wiki that are paths because it is hard to decide if they are more meant for pedestrians or for cyclists.

Yes, me too. I would normally think that these would be incorporated into a longer way with ‘trail_visibility’ set to ‘intermediate’ or something. A note should be made knto the proposal not to tag short sections differently but consider the whole of the section between too diversions probably.

I do not think that anybody suggests they should be untagged. I would be interested in some pictures, actually.

That is why I think ‘shared_use’ is an option to consider. I would be equally hapy for these ways to use ‘cycleway’ with some additional tags, just ‘path’ is a terrible idea.

2 Likes
70

That’s called “Share the Road”, aka highway=road. :wink:

71

“Shared-use path” seems to be a common term according to wikipedia, but I agree it feels too generic for most readers. Could we find a better term for an urban pathway without a specific primary use?

2 Likes
72

As far as I can tell, American traffic engineers and urban planners standardized on this term for the specific purpose of paths designed for bicycles and pedestrians, not for literally any way used by two or more transit modes. However, it gets interpreted more literally in OSM English; that’s just the reality here. For what it’s worth, when laypeople want to be more specific than “bike path” in normal American English, they don’t say “shared use path”, they say “bike-hike path”. :man_shrugging:

3 Likes
73

Thank you to @Minh_Nguyen for a well-argued stance! As your closing note mentions, there are vast regional differences, though.

I agree with most of what you say. I do however think that there are nuances lost in your description. In particular, I think there’s perhaps a slight conflation going on between

and

On the one hand, there are situations where the identification of a way-element in OSM must be based on physical context (or urban planning cues). Semioticians have a nifty concept called ‘Affordance’ that could be used here too. In Finland, a recently enacted traffic law reform is also somewhat ambiguous concerning the legal meaning of a cycleway. For obvious reasons, I won’t re-hash that discussion here.

In the absence of explicit signage (or in the case of ambiguous signage/legal categories) physical cues such as kerbs (particularly if not lowered) are a hint that you might not be intended to ride your bike or drive your bus over them, even if it would be physically possible and the avenue beyond the kerbs could physically accommodate a bus. Perhaps this is the case with the National Mall? I can parse only a handful of Finnish traffic_sign= values, so I’m not even going to try to look at the map in DC. But yeah, sometimes reality is fuzzy and ambiguous and it’s perfectly fine to tag according to the affordances a way offers.

On the other hand, there is a further distinction between ways that are explicitly—but differently—traffic signed, that could be tagged the same.

Take the example I posted earlier about the two traffic signs in Finland (bearing in mind that there are differences in how they are interpreted even inside Europe). The blue roundel sign permits (in fact, designates the way for) pedestrians and bicycles, and indicates that traffic is not segregated. The other forbids (again, in Finland) all motor vehicles. To a pedestrian or a bicyclist, they are functionally identical (because of the Finnish FtR laws, and as neither way is segregated). However, I can understand (and in fact, promote) that the one is more naturally a highway=cycleway and the other (again, at least in the Finnish legal context) a highway=path. Also (again, in Finland), mopeds can be allowed on the blue-roundel-signed cycleways, if they have a further traffic sign allowing them. As I mentioned earlier, service vehicles can similarly be allowed on the non-motor-traffic traffic-signed ways with a further sign. Also taxicabs can use ways with the further permissive sign, but if and only if they let people off or pick customers on them (not for thoroughfare). Consequently, I can infer that the blue-roundel ways can never legally allow cars, but some of the non-motor-traffic ways can. As a pedestrian and a bicyclist, that’s a nontrivial difference and I’d say should be reflected in the tagging (again, also outside of a traffic_sign= tag).

But, yeah. All this is somewhat pedantic.

1 Like
74

I think this can be approached like https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale#Granularity I would prefer to know where the path is visible and where not.

75

As someone who has spent a lot of time compiling sign-to-tag recommendations on the wiki, I certainly sympathize with the desire to respond to different signs with different tagging. Yet I always have to ask myself whether it rises to the level of a different primary tag versus some auxiliary key. This isn’t always easy to answer. Simultaneously, there’s the issue that highway=path is conflated with various things also called “paths”. Whatever the nuances between these two Finnish signs, I’m sure you’d agree that there’s a much smaller difference between the kinds of paths that have either sign than the difference with scrambles up a mountain in the wilderness.

In a layperson’s American English, “path” can mean all these things too, but we also have other vague words like “trail”, “track”, and “trace” when we want to distinguish more primitive, wilder phenomena from neat, sophisticated built infrastructure. I suspect laypeople would have as much of a desire to make this distinction as between any traffic signs. These concepts don’t neatly align with any particular physical characteristic – not strictly about surfacing or visibility. It’s more holistic, subjective but easier for people who’ve been there to agree on. Sometimes it’s described as “rural” versus “urban”, but of course it isn’t quite that simple.

3 Likes
76

“shared use” features so prominently in talks about highway=path, yet while riding my bicycle commute, I got the idea, that to the contrary it is actually “single-use” that sets apart path from other highway classes available.

It is the idea that highway=cycleway excludes pedestrians (does not hold in my jurisdiction.)

77

car > bicycle > pedestrian.

The biggest thing that uses the way, that’s the mode that counts when deciding on the highway tag. Let’s not overcomplicate things. We wouldn’t do highway=residential;cycleway;footway to indicate a road that also allows bicycles and pedestrians. We tag the greatest value. So a bicycle+pedestrian shared infrastructure is a cycleway.

10 Likes
78

Defined like that, it would cover what was meant by Karrenweg.

79

Precisely! Which is why to me e.g. the road mentioned by @Minh_Nguyen above that accepts also cars (and is legal for bicycles and pedestrians) is not really ‘shared-use’ in any particularly meaningful way. It’s a road, and one can glean the very wide ‘shared-use’ property directly from the specific highway-key alone (=service, = residential, =unclassified, =track, etc). Ditto for traffic signed cycleways (segregated or not) that accept pedestrians, they are =cycleways as you said above.

Back to the rubric of the thread, that does leave =paths that don’t have clear signage but legally allow bicycles and pedestrians (and physically admit either most types of bikes, or only MTBs). They would benefit greatly from a couple of new path= categories that would further qualify them according to some (relatively wide) set of physical characteristics (and perhaps the few specific use categories like mtb_dowbhill and the mountaineering stuff).

80

In Switzerland that would mean that we have to invent a new highway-category mofaway. Mofas have to use a signed bicycle- or shared bicycle-foot-path by law.