Jan, could you point us to some of the tagging guidelines used in countries that like Belgium have a lot of unsigned paths oriented towards cyclists?
Cycle tracks: mapping practices outside Belgium
I have extensive experience using OpenStreetMap as a cyclist. In recent years I cycled in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, The Netherlands and Belgium.Wiki, highway code
I have little information what the official tagging guidelines are in different countries, and so I cannot judge whether what I've seen in practice matches those guidelines. However, for Sweden duck tagging explicitly mentions that you use highway=cycleway if it kvacks som en cykelbana.For the highway code. There are two kinds of cycle tracks: compulsory and non-compulsory. Compulsory means that cyclists have to use the track and are not allowed on the carriageway. This is a special rule needing a specific signalisation (I can't immediately think of any other example where a sign for one way influences a different way: you put bicycle=use_sidepath on the main road, but the main road itself has no sign). Non-compulsory cycle tracks do not need a special sign. Any rules (banning motor traffic, speed restrictions, ...) have standard road signs.
Therefore the Vienna Convention, the basis of highway codes in all western European countries, defines a sign (D, 4, which is D7 in the Belgian highway code) for compulsory cycle tracks, and nothing for non-compulsory ones. Using D7 on non-compulsory cycle tracks makes no sense, because a round blue shield signifies compulsion. The Vienna Convention does not define a sign for non-compulsory highways and the Belgian highway code ignores them completely.
Countries may invent their own sign for non-compulsory cycle tracks, as long as it doesn't look like D, 4. The Netherlands, e.g., have a sign g13, consisting of a shield with the text "fietspad". My experience is that this sign is not used systematically.
Experience with routing
In five out of the six countries mentioned, routing (my workhorse for that is Brouter, but I tried others) provides satisfactory results. The routers find non-compulsory highway tracks in all countries, even if there is no specific highway sign present (this also holds for the Netherlands, where a sign exists, but many highway=cycleway do not carry a g13). Routing never sent me over a substandard way.Important too, in view of the large number of towpaths converted to cycle tracks, or cycle-and-pedestrian ways, in Belgium, is that in France the analogues are mapped as cycle tracks. I do not recall riding past towpaths as such in other countries.
The sixth country is Belgium. Ten years ago routing here was a disaster, since you had to use quite elaborate tricks to find the cycle tracks and distinguish them from identially tagged, but useless ways. Since then more and more cycle tracks are tagged as such, in some cases because there is a stray D7 sign. The result varies from region to region.
To give an example of the problem: a note complained about this way, a cycle track which does not show up on the map as such. It has no tagging watsoever which distinguishes it from paths where cycling is allowed, but impractical or even impossible. It does carry a cycle node route, and is described by the municipality which financed it as a "wandel- en fietsroute".
In any of the five countries mentioned this way would be tagged accordingly, and so be easily recognisable on the map, either visually or by a router. In Belgium this is not the case, severely impeding the usefulness of the map in this respect.
2 Likes
I would be in favor of at least mapping F99a and F99b, if there’s a bicycle icon, as highway=cycleway.
U leest dat uitstekend. Zoals u uitermate duidelijk aangeeft: wat een fietspad is voor het verkeersreglement is dat wat in OSM kan getagd worden met cycleway=lane of track op een andere weg. Daaruit kan je afleiden dat de tag highway=cycleway iets heel anders kan aanduiden dan een verkeersreglement-fietspad.
I see your point. It would make a few cycle tracks visible on the map. Unfortunately
there aren't really many cycle tracks with an f99 of that kind. More in Wallonia than
Flanders, is my impression.
There are many agencies -- municipalities, regions, etc. -- who build and manage cycleways, and the result is an ever growing network of cycling connections. I am afraid that we shall have to start a mailing campain to to tell them that, unless they start putting up traffic signs which are pointless according the highway code, Openstreetmap Belgium will continue its efforts to hide the results of their work.
Or we could change the Wiki, of course. What is the procedure for that?
I second your proposal, which is certainly a lot more realistic than what we have now.
Being who I am, I can't help writing a few remarks. Consider them mostly as clarifications.
Dienstweg is not the same as highway=service in Openstreetmap. A way=service has only a local function. I know towpaths which are used by hundreds of commuters. That still may be a dienstweg, but it is very obviously not a highway=service.
Currently about half of the towpaths which are tagged as such have towpath=yes, the others have designation=towpath. Formally the latter is correct: towpaths have a special legal status, and that is expressed with the designation= tag.
The speed limit stems from the Reglement voor de Scheepvaart. Apart from maxspeed=30, source:maxspeed=BE:towpath should be added.
Implementing this scheme will be easy. I ran a query, and at first sight every towpath which is tagged highway=service is a cycle track. Which is bizarre, as only the towpaths which are not cycle tracks can be highway=service.
Apart from the towpath Wiki page, the Belgian page on tagging cycle tracks should be corrected. This page at present only allows highway=cycleway for cycle tracks which are fietspad according to the Belgian highway code. I see you mention that in a different posting.
Good work! If I can be of any help, please let me know.