[patch] Complain about bicycle="no" and cycleway=(something positive)

[Famlam]

Could you consider adding a check for ways with bicycle=no and cycleway(:left|:right)=(something else than separate|no)

Surprisingly, this occurs several hundreds of cases for cycleway=lane alone, but to my knowledge there are no bicycle-closed roads with a cycleway on it. ​https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Hcp

[anonymous]

Better test case (yet still excluding cycleway:left/right I think)
​http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/HdU

Yields 2752 matches in the world from ways with cycleway=[something positive indicating a cycleway] with bicycle=(no or use_sidepath)

[mkoniecz]

What about cycleway=track bicycle=use_sidepath?

[anonymous]

Replying to mkoniecz:

What about cycleway=track bicycle=use_sidepath?

That is exactly why this check would help: these two should never co-exist. From the wiki:

Please do not use bicycle=use_sidepath in combination with cycleway=track on the main highway, if there is no separate cycleway drawn on the map.

cycleway=track indicates there's a separate track next to the highway, which is not separately drawn.
bicycle=use_sidepath indicates no cycling, but to use a separately drawn cycleway instead

[Famlam]

Just as a suggestion, this mapcss rule can be added to this line:

/* 17498 */
way[bicycle][/^cycleway(:|$)/][!/^bicycle:/][bicycle=~/^(no|use_sidepath)$/][/^cycleway(:|$)/!~/^(no|separate)$/] {
  throwWarning: tr("{0} together with {1}", "{0.tag}", "{1.tag}");
  group: tr("suspicious tag combination");
  assertMatch: "way bicycle=use_sidepath cycleway=lane";
  assertNoMatch: "way bicycle=use_sidepath cycleway=no";
  assertNoMatch: "way bicycle=use_sidepath bicycle:backward=yes cycleway:left=lane"; /* instead of :backward, could also be :forward or :conditional */
}

(Admittedly, it'll still miss the case where bicycle=no + cycleway:left=no + cycleway:right=lane, but catching most is better than none)

p.s.: (edit) optionally, [highway!=construction] can be added to the filter

[mkoniecz]

Is bicycle=use_sidepath cycleway=track valid (not sure, I always tag cycleways as separate geometries)?

[skyper]

Replying to mkoniecz:

Is bicycle=use_sidepath cycleway=track valid (not sure, I always tag cycleways as separate geometries)?

Good question but probably should be brought to a bigger audience.

Personally, I would answer "No", though, I know this depends an the country and the definition of cycleway=track.
For me a cycleway=track is a compulsory to use and directly connected to a road.

Splitting cycleway=track of the road is ok but, please, tag it as side path. E.g. cycleway=sidewalk or similar and on the road cycleway=separate.

[Famlam]

According to ​the wiki, these tags shouldn't be on the same way.

It is also reported as an issue on
​the 'bugs in tags' page of this bicycle map and in ​Osmose

[Klumbumbus]

In 17105/josm:

fix #17498 - Warn about bicycle=no and cycleway="something positive" (patch by Famlam, added none in the rules and some asserts from the linked osmose implementation)

[Famlam]

Thank you!

One very small remark: I assume the added none was only intended for the cycleway-check? (Thanks for spotting that by the way!). To my knowledge, bicycle=none doesn't exist ;)

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to Famlam:

I assume the added none was only intended for the cycleway-check?

Yes. Thanks for noticing.

Also I'll add a deprecated warning for cycleway|cycleway:left|cycleway:right=none in favor of *=no

[Klumbumbus]

In 17122/josm:

see #17498 - Fix rule and deprecate cycleway|cycleway:left|cycleway:right=none in favor of *=no

[Don-vip]

Milestone renamed