Tag cycle_highway=yes voor snelfietspaden/fietssnelwegen

I think you’ll find the road quality for autosnelweg documented in Rijkswaterstaat’s road building procedures. The fact that quality isn’t in the highway code/traffic rules doesn’t mean there are no rules for quality.

There’s absolutely no reason to get stuck on insisting that we shouldn’t tag something in OSM unless every rule in every country is exactly the same and we shouldn’t have a tag if it can’t always be used in exactly the same way in every country. Nothing in OSM is like that. Literally nothing. I’m surprised this is such a recurring counterargument.

If the law were changed to include different legal status for a signed cycle expressway, then that would of course also be covered – by the signage. Like when you tag roads with traffic_sign:NL:G11.

Balchen , just as a general response:

I just cycled on a cycleway, 4 meters wide, opposite lanes, seperation lines, smooth concrete surface. In your eyes it should be tagged expressway. But it does not belong to any ‘highway’ or other route. So what would I gain by your tag?

If we were to describe the quality of a cycleway by a tag, than why not a consistently create a tagging-scheme for every type of cycleway instead of a single tag for one peticular type of cycleway. If ‘cycleway=expressway’ than why not cycleway=‘another type’.

My recurring argument you talk about is this: there is no need for a new tag to describe features that can allready be described in more detail and limits itself to one type of road. E.g. if you describe a cycleway with ‘expressway’ it only tells me that it is a broad cycleway with a smooth surface. It does not tell me what kind of surface, nor it’s width, nor it’s access rules nor it’s cllassification in the road system. So the tag does not add but instead removes information, unless you still tag all the other qualities of the road. But in the latter case the tag is redundant.

I feel I’ve made my point for now, and that we will not agree on this. We will await the voting procedure.

If that is what your country or community defines as a cycle expressway, yes. I am not trying to impose a definition on NL or Groeningen.

By this, do you mean to ask “what good is knowing that there exists a short bit of cycle expressway that is not connected to the cycle network in such a way that the quality and network connectivity combined make it a good transport route for me”?

We already have that. cycleway=lane, cycleway=track, cycleway=cycle_greenway, and I personally wouldn’t oppose if someone introduced yet another type of distinct physical class of cycleway. I don’t know if you are aware, but to designate something a cycle lane has heavy legal and physical implications that we take for granted every time we tag it.

I appreciate that it doesn’t tell you that because your country and/or community lacks this definition. Can you appreciate that it does tell me that because my country and/or community has this definition?

Both the Netherlands and Flanders do have cycle expressways / cycle highways. It’s just that they are not that clearly defined as in Norway and there a no traffic signs to mark them, only route signage.

In Noord-Brabant most cycle expressways / cycle highways are up to Dutch “snelfietsroute” design standards. So about 4 m wide, asphalt, not many intersections and even then often priority for cyclists on the cycle highway.

For the F261 a cycleway design with a double white dashed median line with green filling was invented. On newer cycle expressways a similar design without the green filling is used, so just a double white dashed line.

I think those ways could be tagged with a tag like cycleway=expressway. It is clear that they are cycle expressways up to standards with special marking to make clear that this is a cycle expressway.