On 06/16/2011 03:58 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:

On 06/15/2011 03:59 PM, Francisco Moraes wrote:

...

The other day, while routing to a geocache, my Oregon wanted me to "turn" into a greenway which was close to where the geocache would be. Is there a way to avoid this by default? Seems to me that the default style should imply motorcar=no on footway and probably also on a cycleway.

I think this is a bug with the Garmin software, given I've seen similar issues with the off-the-shelf Navteq data as well. I believe the Garmin's trying to get you as close as it can given the mode you're set for, and then assuming you'll get out of your car to go the last few yards.

That is Garmin behaviour indeed. Sometimes it also sticks to thinking you're driving on a sidewalk (footway) which leads to funny behaviour like routing failing. I use TYP files. I've solved that by using a non-routable line type (ie. not the normal 0x15/0x16) for cycleways and footways. This prevents Garmin from thinking you might be on them. (Yes, this has side effects, if you do that for a car routable cycleway, for example one with motorcar=destination). In my TYP file I have two similar looking lines, one that is normal routable and another non-routable. Unfortunately this means I have to compile another map without the tweak for cycling/walking. -- Harri

On 06/16/2011 11:40 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

Now you got me wondering what a highway=cycleway, motorcar=destination road would look like.

Here's one (not quite typical) example from Finland: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Vihdintie,+Vanta... Cars are allowed to use the non-segregated cycleway to get to the houses on top of the hill. A more typical example over here is a living street turning into a cycleway that has a couple houses after it has turned into a cycleway. Here's one example. You are allowed to use a piece of cycleway to get into to property of the blue house showed in the picture. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Tuusula,+Finland... -- Harri

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:01:30PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:

Interesting. Curious...what differentiates a cycleway from a path in your opinion? The mixed, and apparently not bicycle priority, use of both examples makes me wonder what makes it a cycleway as opposed to path + bicycle=designated + foot=designated?

The sad fact is that there are very few if any real cycleways in Finland. Most ways are bicycle=designated,foot=designated,segregated=no. A few municipalities have the habit of drawing a white line in the middle (segregated=yes). I read somewhere that the Vienna convention on traffic signs says that cycleway use should only be obligatory when the cycleway is segregated. Finland is violating this convention by not distinguishing between segregated and non-segregated ways in the legalese. Luckily the cycleway use is not being enforced, and even the regulation says that cycleway use is voluntary on "short trips" when the way is on the left side of the road and/or (can't remember which) it is safer not to use it. There was a lengthy discussion on the users:Finland forum on forum.openstreetmap.org about a year ago. One school of thought seems to be to tag with the "highest allowed form of transportation". Because cycleway>footway, they would seem to be happy with highway=cycleway, foot=yes. But "path" is not strictly "bigger than" or "less than" "footway". I do not think that there exists a total order of non-motorized means of transport. A partial order perhaps. Therefore, it is IMO not feasible to use a single highway=* value. Instead, multiple keys are needed. I try to follow the hints set by JOSM. It draws highway=path,foot=designated,bicycle=designated as a dashed line, alternating the colors of footway and cycleway. I also add surface=paved/unpaved,lit=yes/no,moped=yes/no,snowplowing=yes/no whenever possible or known. Some of my edits have been replaced with highway=cycleway. Luckily the other tags have been preserved. Here is another example of a non-segregated cycleway/footway where motorcars are allowed to destination: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/45249263 An alternative form of tagging might be highway=residential,access=destination,foot=designated,bicycle=designated. I use that when there is a red/yellow traffic sign "motor vehicles not permitted" with an additional sign that allows traffic to destination. Marko

On 17/06/2011 12:54, Marko Mäkelä wrote:

Here is another example of a non-segregated cycleway/footway where motorcars are allowed to destination: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/45249263

Again, going on Bing photo's those sections should be tagged as service roads with bicycle=yes or designated. Dave F.