Tagging of adjacent cycleway + footway (sidewalk)

General talk Tagging general discussion
40

The problem is that there is a gap in the tag’s definition. These mutually exclusive statements are both applicable according to who you ask or what you refer to:

  • A: segregated should only be used for the main ‘carriageway’ of a shared foot/cyclepath, and has nothing to do with any sidewalk tagged with sidewalk.
  • B: The presence of a sidewalk next to a cycleway, implies segregated=yes

Given a cycleway with only a sidewalk and the presumption that all pedestrians must use that instead of the cycleway surface:

Position A means that this is valid:

highway=cycleway
foot=yes
sidewalk=left
segregated=no

Position B means that this is valid:

highway=cycleway
foot=yes
sidewalk=left
segregated=yes

This stems from the tag’s use and promotion over the years. See for example this comment in JOSM’s issue tracker.

To be clear: no one is to blame here, but to resolve this segregated would have to be (re)defined as either strictly pertaining to the (shared) ‘carriageway’ of a (shared) cycleway, or as meaning ‘pedestrians can follow this OSM way segregated from the rest of the traffic on it’. I wouldn’t mind seeing a proposal with two vote ledgers on this if you really want a clear answer.

It doesn’t help that as a tag name, segregated is really too generic, which tends to lead to broader use than envisioned. If you were to ask someone unfamiliar with the project what segregated=yes means and only tell them that is has to do with pedestrians, position B is likely to be what they consider it to represent.

4 Likes