Use of bicycle=designated vs bicycle=yes OUTSIDE of Germany

[Langlaeufer]

@Nadjita

That depends. In Germany, designated implies access=no, so all other allowed transports have to be listed explicitly

I thought so for a long time and for me it was the only sensible explanation why you need “designated”.

But since 2009 the Wiki says:
“The value designated is not meant to imply that OpenStreetMap access=* permissions have been automatically “designated” only to that transport mode!”

And other uses of designated e.g. hazmat=designated does not imply the permission only:

So in Germany you can only imply the exclusive permission by the default values of foot/cycle/briddle-way)

highway=path + foot=designated → footway → pedestrians only
highway=path + bicycle=designated → cycleway → cyclist only etc.

[dieterdreist]

das steht bei den landespezifischen highway defaults

[Langlaeufer]

But not explicit for path + sth=designated

[SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend)]

OK, here’s a sampling of the use of bicycle=designated in 4 areas in England and Wales** - 2 rural, 2 urban, designed to capture a mix of usages. I then picked 4 samples in each area and looked at the tags. In summary, it seems to be mostly a combination of two usages:

• (the largest number): A way was created for the use of people on bicycle. In most cases (but not always) there will be a legal right of access.
• (fewer of these): A way is designated as a “public bridleway” or some sort of “byway”, where there is a legal right of bicycle access.

There’s also 1 (but only one) “highway=path; bicycle=designated;foot=designated” in the sample of 16 too.

The overpass queries and some examples from each area:

Mid Wales
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1mjr
235

access = yes
bicycle = designated
designation = unclassified_highway
highway = track
source = GPS, Bing
tracktype = grade3

bicycle = designated
designation = byway_open_to_all_traffic
foot = designated
highway = track
prow_ref = Llanwrthwl 44/2
surface = dirt
tracktype = grade2

bicycle = designated
foot = designated
highway = cycleway
segregated = no
source = NPE
type = route

bicycle = designated
cycleway = track
foot = designated
highway = cycleway

Central London
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1mjo
156

bicycle = designated
est_width = 1.75
foot = designated
highway = cycleway
lcn_name = Regent's Canal
lit = no
name = Regent's Canal towpath
oneway = no
segregated = no
surface = paving_stones
towpath = yes

bicycle = designated
foot = designated
highway = cycleway
lit = yes
name = The Broadwalk
oneway = no
segregated = no
surface = asphalt
usability:skate = excellent

bicycle = designated
est_width = 1.25
foot = no
highway = cycleway
lit = yes
oneway = no
segregated = yes
sidewalk = both
surface = asphalt

bicycle = designated
foot = designated
highway = cycleway
layer = -1
lit = yes
name = Regent's Canal Towpath
oneway = no
segregated = no
surface = paving_stones
towpath = yes

Manchester
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1mjp
130

bicycle = designated
cycleway:surface = asphalt
foot = designated
footway:surface = asphalt
highway = cycleway
layer = 0
lit = yes
name = Sackville Street
oneway = no
segregated = yes
surface = asphalt
tfgmcitycentre = yes

bicycle = designated
foot = designated
highway = path
segregated = no
source = survey

bicycle = designated
foot = designated
highway = residential
lanes = 1
lit = yes
maxspeed = 20 mph
motor_vehicle = no
name = Thomas Street
oneway = yes
oneway:bicycle = no
sidewalk = both
surface = asphalt

bicycle = designated
foot = yes
highway = cycleway
note = towpath
segregated = no
surface = paving_stones
tfgmcitycentre = yes
towpath = yes

North Pennines
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1mjq
600

bicycle = designated
designation = public_bridleway
foot = designated
highway = bridleway
horse = designated
motor_vehicle = no
surface = ground

bicycle = designated
class:bicycle:commute = -3
description = Former narrow-guage quarry tramway
designation = public_footpath
foot = designated
highway = cycleway
lit = no
mtb:scale = 0+
old_name = Weatherhill and Rookhope Railway
oneway = no
prow_ref = StanhopeRookhope FP 21
railway = abandoned
segregated = no
smoothness = bad
surface = gravel
trail_visibility = excellent

bicycle = designated
designation = byway_open_to_all_traffic
foot = designated
highway = service
horse = designated
name = Mount Eff Lane
prow_ref = Marwood BOAT 28

bicycle = designated
designation = public_bridleway
foot = designated
highway = track
horse = designated
prow_ref = 301 026
surface = unpaved

** In England and Wales there’s no assumed right of access (on foot or otherwise). This is different to places such as the Scandinavian countries, and also different to Scotland.

[Nadjita]

@Langlaeufer

But since 2009 the Wiki says:
“The value designated is not meant to imply that OpenStreetMap access=* permissions have been automatically “designated” only to that transport mode!”

The original proposal says

In practice this created some problems (especially in Germany) where a designation for one mode of travel implies hard restrictions for all others

That made me believe that in Germany, designated implies access=no. But I see now, that this was only, because people were only mapping the blue signs as designated and everything else as yes. But it’s interesting that the disambiguation has been debated since 2008.

I guess if you live in a country with very few explicit allow signs, it does make sense to interpret “yes” as “not forbidden, but not explicitly allowed either”. It’s interesting to see what the mappers in each country made of this.

[emvee]

What bicycle=designated means to me is that the path/way is specifically meant for cyclists, the cyclist is the primary user.

A highway=cycleway has already bicycle=designated as default default access restriction so no need to add it. A footway with “cycling allowed” is bicycle=yes.

The only other ways that fit this are a cycle street and (for the Netherlands) a path that has a red surface but no sign although that will almost always be mapped as highway=cycleway, not as highway=path + bicycle=designated.

Also two adjacent paths without a sign are assumed to be highway=cycleway + highway=footway but the footway is almost never separately mapped, instead foot=yes and sometimes sidewalk=right are added to the cycleway

The type of cycleway is mapped with traffic_sign=NL:G11/NL:G12a/NL:G13:

verplicht = compulsory, a G13 is not compulsory

sideways are not allowed for cycling AFAIK and on a path that is not signed as footway it is not forbidden to cycle but not too many people know that and it is often not done. These paths are also often mapped as highway=footway while strictly speaking highway=path would make sense.

[Hungerburg (Asa Hundert)]

In Austria, there are three kinds of designated cycleways:

1. Mandatory ones, they are designated by a round blue sign. They are mandatory in the sense, that, if you are going to where the way leads, you are to use this way, and NOT cycle on the carriageway. They only make sense, when the cycleway is part of the larger “street” continuum.
2. Optional ones, they are designated by a square blue sign. It is an offer, to use them, instead of cycling on the carriageway. They may make sense even, when the cycleway is not part of a “street”.
3. Green signs that are mounted along cycle-routes. I learned from talks with Australian mappers, that those are valid designations. There are mapping in Austria, that stem from more than ten years ago and follow this convention.

I think I read somewhere, the obligation to use mandatory cycleways is better tagged on the street, where the cycleway is mapped separately. There are even attributes to map, where a cycle:lane mapped on the street (continuum) is mandatory. Streetcomplete has tasks for them.

There is no law, that prohibits pedestrian use of explicitly designated cycleways. Still, pedestrians are to walk on the verge there, or if none such exists, not walk in the centre and have to yield to cycle traffic. Such is very rare, because most often, there is a mandatory footway right alongside, so this rule seldom applies.

Update: Sometimes, quasi agricultural tracks are signed with a round “lolly”, because it is easier for municipalities to order a cycleway, than it is for them, to order a motor-vehicle prohibition. These are in no way binding to cyclists. This is kind of a mystery to me.

[dieterdreist]

around here nobody cares about the details of the signs for bicycles and pedestrians, not even the administration or the people who put them. In theory the law has different kinds of cycleways (e.g. segregated and not), but in practice recently when they redid the markings they drew pedestrian symbols also on the spaces that should be reserved for cyclists according to the signs. E.g. here (note how the sign is inverted and that in the distance the cycleway is crowded with pedestrians)

[gsapijaszko]

@Nadjita

The question now is: if these are cycleways by law (no one but a bicyclist may ride on them), but don’t have a sign for it (just some color on the ground, paving stones in different color, etc.), are these bicycle=designated or bicycle=yes? How do you handle this outside of Germany?

How they are “by law” if there is no sign for it? In Poland designated are those with https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radfahrstreifen#/media/Datei:Zeichen_237_-_Sonderweg_Radfahrer,_StVO_1992.svg sign. bicycle = yes usually is used on those ways, where by law entry by vehicle is forbidden (to the forest, along the embankments) however also by law you can cycle there.

Regards,
Grzegorz

[Langlaeufer]

@gsapijaszko

How they are “by law” if there is no sign for it?

That is German right. Since the introduction of non-mandatory cycleways, cycleway is an “indefinite legal concept”. Everything that looks like a cycleway and not like a footway is a cycleway, but the road traffic regulations don’t tell you how to recognize a cycle path. In case of a dispute, a court must decide if it looks like a cycleway. I think they wanted to save money on new signs and instead shifted the legal risk onto the cyclists.(Of course, there are now some judgments from which a few features of cycle paths can be derived.)

[gsapijaszko]

@Langlaeufer

That is German right.

Thank you for clarification. I’m sorry.

In such case assigning bicycle = yes doesn’t hurt. IMHO bicycle = yes means: bicycle is allowed on this (high)way. Up to cyclist to choose it or not.

Regards,
Grzegorz

[Langlaeufer]

@gsapijaszko

In such case assigning bicycle = yes doesn’t hurt.

But that is exactly the point for heated debates in the German community.
But please do not discuss how it should be used in this case. I’m interested in how other communities uses the two values yes and designated.

[Richard (Richard Fairhurst)]

FWIW, cycle.travel largely treats bicycle=yes and bicycle=designated as identical for routing weighting purposes and for access parsing. (There are one or two edge cases.)

[Nadjita]

@Richard

cycle.travel largely treats bicycle=yes and bicycle=designated as identical for routing weighting purposes

And it should, because the purpose of a road/path doesn’t tell you how good it is for that purpose. smoothness, surface, number of traffic lights and whether pedestrians are also on the way, have a far greater impact.

But since we don’t tag for the router (an often repeated mantra), the question is: when do you tag designated as opposed to yes and why?

[dieterdreist]

But since we don’t tag for the router (an often repeated mantra), the question is: when do you tag designated as opposed to yes and why?

Maybe in retrospect it wasn’t wise to choose “yes” as bicycle value for the situation that they are allowed on footways, because the are not on par with pedestrians there, they may only go at walking speed and give way to pedestrians, which means not really comparable to either the street nor a cycleway or an unspecified generic path.

Cheers Martin

[Richard (Richard Fairhurst)]

I’m in the UK, so the answer is “never”.

[emvee]

@Nadjita

But since we don’t tag for the router (an often repeated mantra), the question is: when do you tag designated as opposed to yes and why?

See my earlier reply for what is I think a workable definition or let’s discuss why that is not a good definition.

For how things are different per country OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions is likely a good source. For the UK, the table shows no use of bicycle=designated following the answer of @Richard.

The Default access restrictions for all countries unless otherwise specified on that page has bicycle=designated and checking all countries I see most countries follow that except for a few.

[SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend)]

@emvee

For the UK, the table shows no use of bicycle=designated following the answer of @Richard.

As an aside, it should be noted that the table at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom implies that access restrictions across the United Kingdom are uniform. They are not. As an example, the rules in Scotland are substantially different to the rules in England (and Wales).

The rest of that paragraph is largely rubbish too - the statement "The legal status of cycles on public rights of way in England and Wales is disputed. On pavements, it is illegal to cycle unless designated … but on public footpaths the law is less clear " is one that is only advanced by the extremist end of the pro-cycling lobby; even Cycling UK (who can be relied upon for many daft suggestions) aren’t sure and only “suggest that it should be allowed”.

[SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend)]

@Nadjita

when do you tag designated as opposed to yes and why?

I can give a specific answer to that for “foot” access - here (although that’s been heavily remapped since I used “foot=designated” here). There is a legal “access on foot” right of way that joins the road from the south and the north, but it’s actually a dangerous road to cross. There were blue signs telling pedestrians from the south to turn right, walk along the cycleway to the roundabut cross at the crossing there, and then walk back the other side. I tagged those sections as “foot=designated” as opposed to “foot=yes”. Since then another mapper has added “foot=designated; bicycle=designated” to the entire length of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/894921545 which in a sense isn’t wrong (the cycleway was created for use by pedestrians and cyclists), but it does lose the sense of “pedestrians are specifically requested to do X” that was there before.

Other than that, @Richard is correct (“never”) for England and Wales, although Scotland has different rules and I’d defer to a local on how best to tag things there - I’m unsure how the Core Paths network handles “intended for mode X” in addition to the “Core Path” designation and the basic legal right that I linked to in the other post.

[phidauex (Sam (phidauex))]

Speaking a bit for the US here (though even that is a patchwork of different rules), there are very few cases where a cycleway is compulsory for bicycles and forbids other transportation methods. Usually the only implied forbidding is motor_vehicle. Everything else is generally allowed, though there may be different right of way expectations.

So when I’m mapping here, I follow the recommendation that @emvee noted, and interpret bicycle=designated to mean that the way is designed for bicycles, and bicycles are expected to be the primary user. This is stronger than “yes” because in a common law community you can ride bicycles nearly anywhere, but some routes are preferred because they were built for bicycles.

So to map this to the German case, the official blue traffic sign is the highest form of designated and it is backed by law. This is very uncommon in the US - if we followed this convention there would be almost no use of designated here for bicycles (or horse or foot, for that matter).

For the “case 2”, clearly identifiable as a cycleway, but not compulsory, then I’d ignore the law for the moment and focus on the intent. This would map in the US to something like this 36 Bikeway where I live - it is 27km long, wide, signed for bicycles, named for bicycles, etc. You could walk on it or ride a skateboard or crawl on your hands and knees, but the intent is clearly bicycles. In your case, because of the above convention about designated implying no for everything else, you’d want to then add the various yes's for foot, horse, etc.