Changeset: 71165279
add name "Kennet and Avon Canal towpath" to elements along the route - this time from Bath to Newbury
Closed by AlwynWellington
Tags
changesets_count | 1714 |
---|---|
created_by | iD 2.15.1 |
host | https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit |
imagery_used | Esri World Imagery (Clarity) Beta;OpenTopoMap |
locale | en-GB |
warnings:crossing_ways | 10 |
Discussion
-
Comment from trigpoint
Hi
These changes are a bit out of step with the consensus of the UK community.
Please could you confirm the source of these changes?
Have you been here? and did you observe signs such as "Kennet and Avon canal towpath"?
A name is an actual name and if my satnav directs me to use a named way I would expect to see a sign confirming that. The name tag should not be used for descriptions.
Being more specific https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/2685 56695/history was mapped as a cycleway for many years until you changed it. It is also not the canal towpath, its a bit difficult to pull a boat from 3m above n'est pas?
The actual towpath is at the canal level and is also mapped.
Highway=path is a bit of a late comer in OSM terms and is rarely used in the UK.
Cheers Phil -
Comment from AlwynWellington
@trigpoint
I've had other stuff these past two days.
Thank you for your observations and you raise some interesting points for discussion. Rather than attempt to answer all at once I've made a first selection, so, with a slight alteration in sequence, here goes:
1) o) These changes are a bit out of step with the consensus of the UK community.
1) r) I believe my tags follow OSM documentation. And thus understood by readers wherever they live.
2) o) Highway=path is a bit of a late comer in OSM terms and is rarely used in the UK.
2 r) In my recent work I encountered the tag "Highway=Cycle and Foot Way" with a blue line when rendered. On saving my work OSM said these were redundant and should be replaced with "Highway=Path".The practice of local territorial authorities where I live (city councils, for example) create shared paths in urban and rural settings and / or allow bicyles on certain footpaths. Some of these may be designated by a cycling club as a cycle route and maintain sihns (like the National Trail signs, but with a bike rather than an acorn). They are still shared paths and official signage is a walker above a bike. Often there is text below saying "Pedestrian Priority" and less often "Cyclists must give way".
It is clear to me, reading "official" web sites that the intention for ways such as Kennet and Avon Canal tow path is a shared path. To tag them 'cycleway' seems to not only an appropriation and, to an international reader, saying do not go here.
I would appreciate your observations. But to rely on UK customary use is not helpful. I can elaborate why I have that viewpoint in a latter discussion.
Phil, over to you.
Kind regards -
Comment from trigpoint
Hi Alwyn
Than you for your response but please can you answer the following questionsWhere in OSM documentation does it say that shared use cyccleways should not be mapped as highway=cycleway?
You say that when you tried to save your work OSM said these were redundant, please can you tell me waht you mean by OSM and what message you recieved. The iD editor does occasionally give warning, but I have never seen on when mapping cycleways.
You added a name to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/268556695/ This is not the towpath, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/163500222 is the towpath at this point. Note it goes under the bridges.
However the name should only be applied if it an actual name of the way that is verifiable on the ground. If you are mapping a long distance route then the name should be part of the relation, not of every way.
You mention 'official' websites, do you have permission to use their information in OSM?You may find https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333 of interest.
Whilst OSM is a database and a blue line is the way a cycleway is mapped on one particular renderer.
I would appreciate your comments, I am also intrigued as to why someone from New Zealand is so interested in European towpaths.
Cheers Phil
-
Comment from trigpoint
Hi Alwyn
I have also noticed that when changing cycleway to path you have not added bicycle=yes which has resulted in broken bicycle routing, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_bicycle&route=51.3545%2C-1.9834%3B51.3542%2C-2.0013#map=17/51.35454/-1.98726&layers=N
When we consider that this is part of NCN 4, that is a very big problem for the integrity of OSM data.
Cheers Phil -
Comment from Richard
Because this breaks bike routing, I'll revert this changeset unless I hear any other compelling reasons asap.
-
Comment from AlwynWellington
Phil, thank you and an important point part of my continuing learning.
I know I checked that the NCR4 relation was still present.
I have just now also looked at all the elements of NCR4 middle section Newbury to Severn Bridge and, at first blush, there are quite a number of discontinuities.
It was the around 12 discontinuities that got me started on the elements making up the route relation for K&A towpath.
Kind regards, Alan -
Comment from AlwynWellington
Richard, I have looked at the point that Phil (@trigpoint) makes. It seems his point has been corrected. But there are still many pre-existing discontinuities in the ordering of the elements elsewhere in this route.
kind regards, Alan -
Comment from Richard
Route ordering is not particularly significant. Any client that makes major use of ordered routes will reorder the data before consuming it.
A really good principle for OSM is "be liberal in what you add, cautious in what you change". People have been mapping cycle routes in Britain for 11 years now - many UK cycle route mappers are actually volunteers for the charity that maintains the National Cycle Network. It is very unlikely that you have suddenly come up with some great insight as to why they've been doing it wrong all these years. Even if you think you have, you should run it past the community first before making sweeping changes.
-
Comment from AlwynWellington
Richard.
I use WayMarkedTrails.org and that normally gets eveything in order. But there was one route relation that not even josm's sort function would resolve. So did this manually so as to use all the features that 'Trails' offers.I understand the principle you refer to, but within the bounds offered by relevant OSM wiki. One such is on naming things.
But here is the thing.
About 10 or so years ago and earlier there was a tag "highway=cycle and foot way" and its colour was blue. It was clear to me that this tag was meant to be inclusive of both means of getting about. Some route elements still have that tag. See Thames Path just west of the confluence of the Kennet with the Thames.
Then, about 10 years ago that (joint) tag was removed and replaced by "=footway", "=cycleway" and "=path".
In the current wiki it is only "=footway" that has the admonition to apply when the use is "mainly or exclusively" for walking. I think that admonition should apply to "=cycleway" also
What I suspect (guess) has happened (knowing human nature about change) is that some mappers have continued to use "cycleway" instead of "=path" as I believe was intended.
I have that belief as when saving additions to the OSM database recently I was asked to change "=cycle and foot way" tags that were proximate to my additions to ="path .
I have attempted to find the time line for these changes, without success. As I say based on that experience and what I can see and based on my understanding of human nature (I have had to introduce so much of it in my professional career) I come to these preliminary conclusions. It may be helpful in someone can give an authoritative chronology, but that may just be a rabbit hole.
I am happy to enter into a open discussion. But where the response is simply "that (cycleway) is just how we do it in the UK, then no thank you.
I am indebted to your information the focus of many cycle route mappers have a primary focus on that means of getting about. That may explain many of what I see as "funny" instances. For example: where a perfectly adequate suburban sidewalk without any signage about shared use is tagged as "=cycleway". I have no difficulty with the sidewalk elements being included in a cycling route relation (if that is actually appropriate) so it can be properly rendered in, say, cycling,waymarkedtrails.org. But it seems to me tagging a not very wide sidewalk as something else, I thinks, suggests a step too far.
I would be pleased to continue the discussion.
-
Comment from DaveF
>To tag them 'cycleway' seems to not only an appropriation and, to an international reader, saying do not go here.
>But to rely on UK customary use is not helpful.I think you're misunderstanding 'cycleway' which can be used to map shared ways
Having a cycle route relation attached to a way doesn't not make that way accessible to bike riders. It requires cycle specific tags on the actual ways.
Changing cycleway to path but not adding tags allowing cycling prevents accessibility to bikes.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/129444879Deleting foot=* on ways where walking is designated is wrong
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/667952161/history"Kennet and Avon Canal towpath" is not the name of the path. There is a route relation titled "Kennet and Avon Canal towpath"
>But where the response is simply "that (cycleway) is just how we do it in the UK, then no thank you.
This is a tad hypocritical as you're clearly assuming it should be to suit the perspective of "an international reader," & "where I live"
For the above reasons I believe this, & other changesets of Alwyns has reduced the quality of the database & should be reverted
-
Comment from AlwynWellington
@DaveF, thank you for your comments.
OSM is an international publication. This partly explains, from the Wiki, why "highway=sidewalk" is the preferred tag in suburban areas at least for what I, and I suspect you also, would be happier to tag as "=footpath".
You are correct for all "highway=*" tags "cycle=yes" must be present for a CycleRoute relation to be effective. In the same way as "foot=yes" is also required for HikingRoute relations, and so on.
It is my practice to note what access and route relations were marked before and ensure they are continued after any changes. If I have missed some, that is regretted but is not not intentional.regards
-
Comment from DaveF
"highway=sidewalk" is the preferred tag
Not true. There's no such tag -
Comment from SomeoneElse
For completeness:
> for all "highway=*" tags "cycle=yes" must be present for a CycleRoute relation to be effective. In the same way as "foot=yes" is also required for HikingRoute relations
Strictly speaking neither of those is true either - there are plenty of examples of cycle and hiking routes where there is permissive access only. -
Comment from SomeoneElse
More generally I'd suggest that https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb is probably the better forum for general GB-related tagging discussions - more people will see the messages and will be able to chip in.
-
Comment from AlwynWellington
@DaveF, your response is the more complete than mine.
Plus also "*=designated".
In my defence, I was trying for an uncluttered response.
regards, Alan -
Comment from AlwynWellington
@DaveF, re sidewalk.
My response is both yes and no.
In a sandbox (using the browser editor) I drew a line.
The prompts for me to map the nature of the line included "Sidewalk"
Selecting that put in two tags.
So, yes, one can select "Sidewalk" up front and, yes, the editor does the work behind the scenes.
In a practical sense I have selected "highway=...sidewalk".kind regards, Alan
-
Comment from AlwynWellington
@DaveF, thanks for the probably better forum link. I think this is the one from which I looked at the July to date archive a few days ago.
I would want to read my way in before making any talking-points.regards, Alan
regards -
Comment from AlwynWellington
@DaveF, re sidewalk again.
The Wiki (at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks and the section Terminology discusses why this is the preferred tag for space identified in some way as part of a road but not for motor vehicles.
It is my understanding that have right of way (unless specifically removed, eg motorways, under legislation) on paths and roads.
That being the case it follows that those on foot on a sidewalk have priority over other designated users (eg cyclists) on the same sidewalk.
The designation comes from the local authority (not a ramblers, harriers or cycling group) and is shown on official road side signage, or painted on the sidewalk.It is my clear understanding the shared use signage does not set aside the common law right of way (and primacy) for those on foot.
Kind regards
- Shalbourne Brook (696557912), v1
- Shalbourne Brook (696557913), v1
- 696557914, v1
- 696557915, v1
- 696557916, v1
- 696557917, v1
- Ford Brook (696557918), v1
- Ford Brook (696557919), v1
- Kennet and Avon Canal towpath (4333408), v14
- Kennet and Avon Canal towpath (4334742), v14
- 4390473, v27
- Kennet and Avon Canal towpath (5153817), v13
- Kennet and Avon Canal towpath (5191103), v11
- Kennet and Avon Canal towpath (6554669), v8
- Kennet and Avon Canal towpath (6556177), v7
- Kennet and Avon Canal towpath (6558511), v8
- Kennet and Avon Canal towpath (6561786), v19
- Kennet and Avon Canal towpath (6564763), v12
- Kennet and Avon Canal towpath (6565341), v10
- Kennet and Avon Canal towpath (6565344), v7
Relations (3)
- National Cycle Network Route 4 (1318928), v381
- EuroVelo 2 - Capitals Route - part United Kingdom 4 (5479821), v68
- Kennet and Avon Canal towpath (8345184), v22
Nodes (19)
- 6541401003, v1
- 6541401004, v1
- 6541401005, v1
- 6541401006, v1
- 6541401007, v1
- 6541401008, v1
- 6541401009, v1
- 6541401010, v1
- 53284770, v8
- 4456900288, v2
- 4456900319, v2
- 4456900326, v2
- 5339769233, v2
- 5881922707, v2
56128673, v51016376903, v42633646464, v23731705584, v25881922706, v2
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |