Bedankt, ook nog even gekeken en nog twee plekken gevonden.

changeset/82405503

Nice, always good to check it on the ground!

Hi danilolessa,

http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/errors/?item=3032&class=30329 is almost clean apart from Sao Paulo.

I plan to remove "bicycle=use_sidepath" from these roads because:
1) There is no side-path (a shoulder is part of the way)
2) "bicycle=use_sidepath" is interpreted by routers as "bicycle=no" and this changeset indicates you are allowed to cycle there
3) "bicycle=use_sidepath" if there is a law that tells a cyclist to use the sidepath instead of the normal road, AFAIK that is not the case for Sao Paulo

For a cycleway that is part of the way the should not have "bicycle=no" as that would make also the cycleway not accessible. See osm.wiki/Bicycle#Cycle_lanes_in_oneway_motor_car_roads

So I think "bicycle=no" and "foot=no" should be removed from both ways.

See osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#France, by default the dual carriage ways tagged as "highway=primary" are still allowed for cycling and walking.

If you like to indicate a road is not preferred for cycling, use class:bicycle=*

> but now we are in a funny situation of having a road forbidden to cyclists with a bike lane on both sides

Can you give an example? Maybe I can help to clean up the situation.

Greetings

Hi Alex,

Thanks for letting me know!

Solved, changeset/81695786

Martin.

Bonjour,

See osm.wiki/FR:Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepath, "bicycle=use_sidepath", "bicycle=use_sidepath" est interprété par les routeurs comme "bicycle=no" donc s'il n'y a pas de piste cyclable séparée mappée, aucun cycliste n'est autorisé. Cela signifie que la combinaison de "vélo = use_sidepath" avec "cycleway = *" n'a pas de sense.

NB: I use google translate to translate to French, this is the original text:

"bicycle=use_sidepath" is interpreted as by routers as "bicycle=no" so if there is no separate cycle track mapped, no cyclist are allowed. That means the combination of "bicycle=use_sidepath" with "cycleway=*" does not make sense.

> Who decided to trigger an error in Osmose for that specific issue?

There is no warning (yet) in Osmose for foot=use_sidepath + sidewalk=both, for cycleway check was added Oct 2019, see https://github.com/osm-fr/osmose-backend/commit/36aa2f11428caaadd4b30e1e5064b7d3d3f9f50e

The reason I triggered on sidewalk=both with foot=use_sidepath is that when you replace sidewalk by cycleway and foot by bicycle you will trigger the Osmose warning. Like written I think matches osm.wiki/Sidewalks#Sidewalk_as_separate_way

I think routing engines interpret foot=use_sidepath as foot=no while sidewalk=both is interpreted as this ways has sidewalks so you can walk.

Reading sidewalk=* and osm.wiki/Sidewalks things are no crystal clear but on osm.wiki/Sidewalks#Sidewalk_as_separate_way I read: "The corresponding highway can also be tagged with sidewalk=separate."

Dans cet ensemble de modifications, vous avez ajouté "vélo = utiliser le chemin latéral" à bien des égards, mais en regardant la carte qui est fausse, ce n'est pas une piste cyclable distincte cartographiée.

Voir:
- osm.wiki/FR:Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepath
- http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/errors/?source=280&item=3032&class=30329

Pouvez-vous corriger cela?

Merci.

Thanks, looks good for cycling now!

On: sidewalk=both, this conflicts with foot=use_sidepath and the actual sidepath's mapped, so better remove it also.

Hi,

With this changeset Rue Boardman (way/774679436) got:
-bicycle=use_sidepath
-cycleway=lane
-cycleway:right=track
-oneway:bicycle=yes

That is a confusing set of tags, Osmose is giving a warning for it: http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/errors/?source=415716&item=3032&class=30329

Can you have a look and update the tags to be more consistent, see also bicycle=use_sidepath

Thanks!

Bedankt voor de melding!

Ja even met mapillary gekeken en inderdaad. Opmerkelijke constructie, aangepast in changeset/80718552

Not sure how I concluded there is no lane visible, maybe it was just a copu-and-paste error from my previous commit, but if you know the situation on the ground, that is leading.

What is strange to my opinion is to have a way with "cycleway.right=lane" and on the other side a bi-directional bicycle road. As far as I know these bicycle roads should be taken and therefore "bicycle=use_sidepath".

Is the "problem" maybe that the cycle path on the north is one-directional?

Aha, die ventwegen zijn oneway:bicycle=no, dat had ik niet gezien maar waarschijnlijk zal JOSM dat binnenkort zo laten zien als bij cycleway=opposite.

Dat verkeerslicht heb ik toegevoegd, bedankt voor je reactie.

Hoi Squizie,

In deze changeset heb aan de wegen way/727911340 en way/727911339 "oneway=no" toegevoegd maar daarmee zijn die fietspaden niet in overeenstemming met de aansluitende wegen. Verder mist er dan een stoplicht aan de noordzijde.

Zijn de aansluitende wegen (noord en zuid) ook twee-richtingsverkeer geworden en is er een verkeerslicht aan de noordelijk kant bijgekomen?

Groeten,

Martin.

Sorry, complete right you did revert the change.

I marked these Osmose warings as ignore and they were gone, but they somehow popped up again and I did not recognize that I had been changing the two times earlier.

Bedankt voor de correctie, ja op Mapillary gezien dat de fietspaden in twee richten gebruikt mogen worden.

Verkeerslichten verder bijgewerkt, zie changeset/80102912

Hoi Glen,

Bedankt voor het bijwerken van de omgeving van Soest.

Vraag over deze wijziging: Waar heb je de stoplichten verplaatst naar de kruisingen? Volgens mij moet ze staan op de plek waar de voetganger/het paard moet stoppen...

Groeten,

Martin.

Sorry for replying in English, my French is bad but using Google translate I understand what you wrote.

Before my change the tags were bicycle=no + cycleway:right=share_busway and those tags contradict each-other, at least for the forward traffic. With my change forward cycle traffic is allowed and backward cycle traffic not.

Is the bus corridor closed to bicycles in both directions? If so, "cycleway:right=share_busway" should be removed and "bicycle=no" added again.

Greetings,

Martin.

French (automatic) translation:

Avant mon changement, les balises étaient vélo = non + piste cyclable: droite = share_busway et ces balises se contredisent, au moins pour le trafic aller. Avec mon changement, le trafic de cycle en avant est autorisé et le trafic de cycle en arrière non.

Le couloir de bus est-il fermé aux vélos dans les deux sens? Si c'est le cas, "cycleway: right = share_busway" doit être supprimé et "bicycle = no" ajouté à nouveau.

Martin.