Talk:Key:bicycle:designated:type

Move to Proposed_features/Key:bicycle:designated:type

Thank you for making this proposal for a new tag, Multimodaal. Normally, new tag proposals are put under the "Proposed_features" space, like: Proposed_features/Key:bicycle:designated:type, so I would recommend moving the page to that location. I think this is a proposal because the tag has only been used by 1 user with 1 value (mtb).

Would it be ok to move the page, Multimodaal? If you don't mean for this to be a proposal, it could also be ok to leave it here, but then other users will be able to freely edit the page as they wish. --Jeisenbe (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jeisenbe, thanks for your suggestions.

I chose not to go through the lengthy proposal-process since this is a simple addition (not a replacement) to existing tags in the (not uncommon) form of a contraction of tags already in use.

Therefore -and because I much rather go out and map- I chose the route of "use any tags you like, but please document them here here on the OpenStreetMap wiki, even if self-explanatory."

And yes, that means that you will find documentation for a that that is currently only used by 1 mapper. I preferred that to using a non-documented custom tag, despite the fact that is rather self-explanatory (-;

But if this page evolves as a result of constructive feedback, then that is fine with me.

And if someone wants to take this through the proposal proces, then that's fine as well. In that case please let me know so I can help and clarify when needed. --Multimodaal (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Synonym of mtb tags

Perhaps one of these exiting tags would work: bicycle=mtb --Jeisenbe

unfortunately not: "mtb" is a NOT legal access-value such yes/permissive/destination etc..

It is a loosely defined, not legally binding described sub-group of bicycles. For many bikes many people will disagree on wether it is or isn't a mbt. And in real life the paths mentioned here or more something of a use-category: you can very well ride the easier mtb-routes on a cyclocross or trekking bike as well, depending on how comfortable you are with riding a bike.--Multimodaal (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

mtb=designated --Jeisenbe

unfortunately not: see above and furthermore: this suggest a specific legal class of vehicles, while this is not the case (at least not in the cases that I know of and in international and national legislation and signs on legally non-public roads).

On these path people riding a cyclocross bike trekking bike (which you both may encounter) -or any other type of bike- have the same access-rights as a "proper" mtb.--Multimodaal (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm pro mtb=designated, sub access categories doesn't have to be in the law to be usable OSM access keys.--Florimondable (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

that might be true for more subjective classes like route=hiking vs route=foot, but not in this case.

mtb=designated in an ACCESS-tag, and

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access clearly states:

"Access values describe legal permissions/restrictions. What happens on the ground may be different: for instance, many footpaths are used as de facto bike paths, without a legal right to do so. (Various 'greyzone' tags have been proposed to deal with such situations, but this is controversial and is not described here.)"

As said, there is no LEGAL difference between cyclists on an mtb or on a cyclocross bike and a tag mtb=designated would wrongly suggest that there is. Multimodaal (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure to understand, do you have an example to show ? May be mtb:scale=* would be better ?

(Please use ':' for every line you write in order to have a proper thread)--Florimondable (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

mtb=yes --Jeisenbe

unfortunately not: see above and furthermore: *=yes suggest "official, legally-enshrined right of access; i.e., it's a right of way" as opposed to *=permissive " Open to general traffic until such time as the owner revokes the permission which they are legally allowed to do at any time in the future."

None of the mtb-specific paths that I know of have a legally protected right of way as implied by *=yes. The administrator may have designated these path for use by cyclists, under Ducth law the nevertheless have the right to close off or even remove this way at their own discretion, without legal procedures (they are ways open to the general public (Wegenverkeerswet), but the ways themselves are not public (Wegenwet) as opposed to "normal" higher level ways that are considered public ways --Multimodaal (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

mtb:type=* --Jeisenbe

This might be an _addition_ -when designated as such- to further refine the type of "mtb", but not a replacement.

Would be something like bicycle:designated:type:mtb=crosscountry. --Multimodaal (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

And also see route=mtb --Jeisenbe (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

yes that good page to look at for possible values for the possible addition mentioned above:

bicycle:designated:type:mtb=crosscountry/allmountain/downhill/trial/freeride

However, this is not a uselful tag to replace bicycle:designated:type=mtb om mtb-specific paths, since route=mtb is not specific to these kinds of paths: mtb-route relations often consist of a combination of mtb-specific paths, non-mtb-specific paths, and other types of ways, such als cycleways and other paved ways.

--Multimodaal (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)