Reworking the wiki Bicycle page

CycleStreets · 2024-07-15T18:41:00.769Z

For many years, we have wanted to see wholesale scrapping/reworking of the existing bicycle page to something much clearer:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

Tagging for cycle infrastructure is arguably one of the more complex areas of OSM to get right, yet this page makes things even harder, especially because of the giant table of over-complex, obscure layout cases, and lack of any sense of what really matters in ensuring the created data will result in good routing/cartography. It lacks a good, clear structure, and instead the reader’s focus is on a table of obscure cases. It has also become a bit of a dumping ground, as new infrastructure and ‘stuff’ has appeared over the last decade.

We would like to seek consensus to rework this page entirely.

We suggest the following proposed structure, but would welcome comments:

Opening to note why OSM is the best cycling data source and making clear how the cycle network means everywhere, not just ‘bike lanes’
Start with a really clear overview of the broad categorisations of cycle infrastructure, essentially providing a kind of ‘initial triage’, so the mapper gets an immediate sense of what area of tagging they should be using and can then work down that hierarchy
A clear description, with examples, of the lane vs track question, i.e. adding attributes to an existing way vs separate way
Moving the complex table off the page to a separate page of detailed cycle infrastructure road layouts†
On the main page remaining, retaining from that chart only the most common example layouts, which cover a 90% use-case, so that these are not lost within the massive pile of fairly irrelevant examples (e.g. B1 being a prime example)
Then information on key attributes which are most relevant to routing, e.g. see this list, to encourage their widespread adoption and thereby increase the metadata quality of cycle-specific infrastructure
Then discussion of access tagging, currently called ‘Bicycle restrictions’, which needs to be clearer about different unresolved views about what exactly ‘no’ vs ‘dismount’ means, and to deal with the issue of exclusive/advisory, and to help to start to clear up the UK ‘Cyclists Dismount’ mess that is confused with dismount.
Then discussion of ‘routes’, i.e. lcn/ncn/rcn etc.
Then dealing with contraflow cycling
Then dealing with the excellent new separation spec
Short mention of the issue of ensuring traffic light tagging and directionality is correct when dealing with layouts of multiple parallel Ways making up a street
Then dealing with barriers, including linking to the excellent new cycle barrier spec
Then discussion of what is currently called ‘Facilities’, with perhaps some moving of things like bicycle counters to their own page, i.e. list each type of thing and have the detail on their own page
Moving bicycle clubs and associations to a separate page, but obviously linking to it
Moving the random dumping ground of bits and bobs that opens the ‘See also’ section to their relevant areas
Finishing with the maps/routers as present, unless this becomes larger in which case each should be sub-paged similarly.

Essentially, the feeling of using this page should be a kind of hierarchy, where the most important concepts are clearly presented first, enabling the reader then to drill down into more detailed understanding progressively.

Also the opportunity would be taken to mop up various things outstanding from the Talk page that have been lingering there for a while and could be merged in.

One settled, the translations of the page could be updated as a full-update exercise.

Would welcome thoughts on this structure, as well as hopefully a general consensus that this page needs to be reworked.

† Personally I would like to consign that chart to the bin of history entirely. But speaking with a bit less emotion, I accept it has some use. It mainly just shouldn’t be a massive prominent thing that obscures broader and more important understanding of cycle tagging as a whole. – Martin

Mateusz_Konieczny · 2024-07-15T19:36:43.404Z

Overall looks like great idea! With such grand reworking there is always potential that it will be derailed by attempt to redefine something at the same time, but it looks like it is not being attempted here.

I am a bit scared by no/dismount thing. Partially because it may be something like that, partially because it may turn out that despite my research and effort to avoid this Tag:bicycle=dismount - OpenStreetMap Wiki Tag:bicycle=no - OpenStreetMap Wiki may be in fact misleading and wrong.

Maybe it would be a good idea to revamp/fix/accept/purge/improve/review Tag:bicycle=no - OpenStreetMap Wiki and Tag:bicycle=dismount - OpenStreetMap Wiki first?

To avoid tying it with grand rewrite of the Bicycle page? So that grand rewrite would move content around and not change meaning/claims?

CycleStreets:

we

it is a bit confusing, is it a shared account of CycleStreets developers?

Peter_Elderson · 2024-07-15T20:52:30.327Z

Probably a good idea. My three cents:

Routing is not the only purpose of tagging, I would even say it’s not the main purpose. It is important, but it should not drive the tagging.
I live in the Netherlands, where bicycle infrastructure is pretty detailed. Still, I wouldn’t move that to the outskirts of the wiki, because I see other European countries moving in the same direction.
I’m not so sure removing the examples will help the mappers. I know for a fact that many mappers are not very happy with principles, logic and wordy explanations, and rather use recognizable examples.

Peter_Elderson · 2024-07-16T07:53:07.835Z

One obvious flaw of the current bicycle wiki page is that standalone cycleways, without an accompanying road, are completely overlooked. I have seen those in many European countries, and I think the numbers are increasing.
No, I’m lying, not completely overlooked: there is one example in the miscellanious section, focusing on combination of cycling and walking where the cycling surface might differ from the walking surface.

CycleStreets · 2024-07-16T19:42:16.807Z

To avoid tying it with grand rewrite of the Bicycle page? So that grand rewrite would move content around and not change meaning/claims?

It is not the aim to change any meanings, as you say. But this problem does need to be tidied up. Will probably be useful for us to post separately on that.

Routing is not the only purpose of tagging, I would even say it’s not the main purpose. It is important, but it should not drive the tagging.

Yes, absolutely. Research uses and cartography are just as important. The better the attribute set available to these, e.g. widths/segregation/surface, the better. Obviously this improves routing but these attributes are critical for these other uses if they are to give best outputs.

I live in the Netherlands, where bicycle infrastructure is pretty detailed. Still, I wouldn’t move that to the outskirts of the wiki, because I see other European countries moving in the same direction.

Agreed. It is certainly a strong intention to ensure all kinds of infrastructure are properly represented on the page. At present, that is not really the case.

I’m not so sure removing the examples will help the mappers. I know for a fact that many mappers are not very happy with principles, logic and wordy explanations, and rather use recognizable examples.

We have suggested keeping the main ones that are of wide relevance, and having the less relevant ones moved over to a separate page. As you say, there is value in having diagrammatic representations. But having the useful stuff hidden amongst a large amount of obscure cases, e.g. B1, really isn’t helping those useful examples shine.

One obvious flaw of the current bicycle wiki page is that standalone cycleways, without an accompanying road, are completely overlooked.

Yep, the page needs to be far clearer about tagging cycleways between areas, e.g. between estates, through woods, etc., which form the backbone of the longer-distance routes in places like Germany, Netherlands, etc. It is exactly this kind of thing the initial ‘triage’ section of the page we proposed should cover.

Nzau · 2024-08-29T09:58:35.989Z

Hi, I live in France and like to map the cycling facilities around me. I totally agree on the need to clean up the current page.

I’d love to help, but perhaps the wisest thing to do would be to start by creating a temporary page under someone’s profile?
I’d be delighted to help!

Translated with Deepl

JassKurn · 2024-08-29T13:53:35.603Z

I agree it could do with a clean up. I agree with the structure

I’m disabled and regularly us a recumbent or tricycle. Something I’d suggest, which is a bit pedantic, is to make clear the tag is for all forms of pedal cycle, and not just bicycles.

The UK community needs to engage with the UK’s problematic legal definition for “Cyclists Dismount” signs.

CycleStreets · 2024-08-31T09:28:01.407Z

Have made a initial start, mainly to deal with the low-hanging fruit:

Routes - new section
Separation/segregation - new section
Barriers and obstructions - new section
Cycle parking - new section
Facilities: tidied up
Online services - new section split out from See also, and removed obsolete items
See also - moved some entries into main text

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

Changes are made as separate commits for clarity.

Msiipola · 2024-08-31T10:24:42.599Z

The wiki page seems to anticipate the cycle tracks always are along roads, which of course not always true. If this have any influence on the wiki text, I don’t know.

dieterdreist · 2024-08-31T11:16:10.000Z

The wiki page seems to anticipate the cycle tracks always are along roads, which of course not always true.

cycleway=track means exactly this, an implicit cycleway along a road. Otherwise an explicit cycleway is highway=cycleway (or path with bicycle=designated)

Msiipola · 2024-08-31T11:28:31.552Z

dieterdreist:

Otherwise an explicit cycleway is highway=cycleway

Yes I know, but the page is called “Bicycle” shouldn’t it also contain info about highway=cycleway? The current page doesn’t speak much of such highways.

CycleStreets · 2024-08-31T12:52:20.496Z

Msiipola:

Yes I know, but the page is called “Bicycle” shouldn’t it also contain info about highway=cycleway? The current page doesn’t speak much of such highways.

Yes, we plan to address that in the next round of edits - see discussion above about the way the page misleadingly currently only covers two kinds of cycle provision.

balchen · 2024-09-07T12:58:59.243Z

I would like to contribute where I can.

I know there are a lot of national variations on how to tag. Do you have a plan to cover that?

NitaRae · 2024-09-07T14:02:30.670Z

As I read through the comments, one thing that is not mentioned (per se) is a scale of usefulness (for lack of a better word) of a bike route. I’ll try to explain what I’m speaking of (and use some examples local to me) …

Usefulness level 1 - protected bike route. No competing motorized vehicles. Paved/finished.

Usefulness level 2 - semi-protected, but legal, bike route. Has competing motorized vehicles, but a portion (e.g. shoulder) is available to bike riders. Paved/finished.

Usefulness level 3 - unprotected, but legal, bike route. Has competing motorized vehicles, bikes are relegated to the same travel lane as the motor vehicles. Paved/finished.

Usefulness level 4 - unprotected, but legal, bike route. Has competing motorized vehicles. Unfinished, and therefore there are no lanes per se, but traffic volume may be low. Surface subject to degradation during periods of rain/snow.

The last one may be less common in most places, but represents about 2/3 of the local roads in my area. Over the past 3 days, I’ve measured 200mm of rain. I won’t go near any of those (on a bike) for at least a week.

These levels are orthogonal to some of the other tags, but they allow a simplicity of how a routing algorithm may select various trails/streets/roads/etc. There may be other valid levels I’m not aware of.

Peter_Elderson · 2024-09-07T20:34:29.189Z

NitaRae:

scale of usefulness (for lack of a better word) of a bike route.

I understand the desire, but this scale mixes up lots of things, I don’t think Nederland’s bike routes could be scaled like this in practice.

CycleStreets · 2024-09-07T21:24:50.265Z

NitaRae:

These levels are orthogonal to some of the other tags, but they allow a simplicity of how a routing algorithm may select various trails/streets/roads/etc. There may be other valid levels I’m not aware of.

Existing tagging already lets this kind of approach be done.

Our own routing engine for instance does similar things for classifying infrastructure, based on the existing tagging. It is a subjective approach, however, but can be achieved from the existing objective tagging, as should be the case.

The relevant tagging is now covered within the Bicycle page, now that previously-omitted things like segregation etc. have been corrected. Will continue to make a next set of improvements to the page as time allows soon.

Jarek · 2024-09-07T22:15:38.099Z

NitaRae:

As I read through the comments, one thing that is not mentioned (per se) is a scale of usefulness (for lack of a better word) of a bike route. I’ll try to explain what I’m speaking of (and use some examples local to me) …

This is generally better handled by tagging the objective properties of the route:

whether motor vehicles are allowed (e.g. tagging as highway=cycleway, motor_vehicle=no, any bollards or barriers, etc)
cycleway=lane for bike lanes if present, cycleway=track for protected bike tracks
shoulder=yes, shoulder:width=*, shoulder:surface=*
maxspeed=* to give the router a rough idea of how fast the motorized vehicles on the road are travelling
surface=*, e.g. surface=unpaved or surface=dirt

This way we don’t run into problems that a “Usefulness level 2” route in one area would only be considered a “Usefulness level 5” route in another area where bicycle facilities are better, and we also allow routers to find best routes through an area with fewer bicycle facilities.