warn about segregated=no and sidewalk=left/right/both

[Famlam]

Please see ​https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/PgT
There are 435 cycleways where a sidewalk (either left/right/both, optionally also the already-warned-for yes) is set, but on which segregated=no. A cycleway with a sidewalk, but no segregation (i.e., separation for bicycles and pedestrians), is hard to imagine.

What is the expected result?

A sidewalk on a cycleway implies that there is a separate area for pedestrians. Hence, the combination with segregated=no is quite likely a mistake. Therefore, a warning about a suspicious tag combination should be given.

What happens instead?

No warning.

Please provide any additional information below. Attach a screenshot if possible.

URL:https://josm.openstreetmap.de/svn/trunk
Repository:UUID: 0c6e7542-c601-0410-84e7-c038aed88b3b
Last:Changed Date: 2019-12-01 23:10:15 +0100 (Sun, 01 Dec 2019)
Build-Date:2019-12-02 02:30:57
Revision:15553
Relative:URL: ^/trunk

Identification: JOSM/1.5 (15553 nl) Windows 10 64-Bit
OS Build number: Windows 10 Home 1903 (18362)
Memory Usage: 751 MB / 1820 MB (501 MB allocated, but free)
Java version: 1.8.0_231-b11, Oracle Corporation, Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM
Screen: \Display0 1920x1080
Maximum Screen Size: 1920x1080

Plugins:
+ OpeningHoursEditor (35242)
+ changeset-viewer (22)
+ imagery_offset_db (34908)
+ tageditor (34977)
+ turnlanes-tagging (281)
+ undelete (34977)
+ utilsplugin2 (35238)

Map paint styles:
- https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Styles/Lane_and_Road_Attributes&zip=1
- https://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Styles/PublicTransport&zip=1

Last errors/warnings:
- W: No configuration settings found.  Using hardcoded default values for all pools.

[Klumbumbus]

segregated is independent from sidewalk as segregated refers to the lane itself while sidewalk not. However also roads with segegated=yes are suspicious as well. There are cases like ​this but then it is highway=residential (not highway=cycleway) + bicycle_road=yes + sidewalk=both (and no segregated). While it could theoretically be segregated=yes|no on the lane it is still wide enough to be highway=residential. If the road is small (highway=cycleway) then it is unlikely that if a sidewalk is present, pedestrians are allowed to walk on the lane too and interfer the cyclists.

So as summary if that text was too confusing ;) I would warn for all:

highway=cycleway|footway|path + segregated=* + sidewalk=left|right|both

[Klumbumbus]

way[highway=~/^(cycleway|footway|path)$/][segregated][sidewalk =~/^(left|right|both)$/] {
  throwWarning: tr("{0} together with {1} and {2}", "{0.tag}", "{1.key}", "{2.key}");
  group: tr("suspicious tag combination");
}

[Klumbumbus]

​https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Pm6

[anonymous]

So as summary if that text was too confusing ;)

I think I understood it, thanks :)! I always interpret segregated yes as "a single road dedicated to pedestrians and bicycles (/mopeds/mofas), where they do not share each others travel area", so without restriction to whether that separation of travel areas is due to a line on the road or a kerb like a sidewalk. But then this was always duplicate tagging when a sidewalk was present, so it was confusing for me why I had to add both (and, clearly, for many others too)

Indeed, I wouldn't warn about residential (or other car-allowed-roads), even if it were only because the wiki states that there are sidewalks where cyclist may go on the sidewalk. (Although I would personally probably call that cycleway=track + sidewalk=no, when used as property of the road; I'm not aware of such a case though).

So to summarize what I wrote, I agree with your proposal :)
This however also requires that https://josm.openstreetmap.de/browser/josm/trunk/data/validator/combinations.mapcss#L629 is modified to exclude ways with the sidewalk=left/right/both tag, or it will warn to re-add the segregated tag.

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to anonym:

This however also requires that https://josm.openstreetmap.de/browser/josm/trunk/data/validator/combinations.mapcss#L629 is modified to exclude ways with the sidewalk=left/right/both tag, or it will warn to re-add the segregated tag.

I don't think that rule should be changed. What would be a valid tag combination for which we would see a false positive warning? Can you please give an example?

[Famlam]

The rule from comment 3 would trigger on a cycleway with:
highway=cycleway + foot=yes + segregated=yes + sidewalk=left
Assuming a sidewalk was present, I would then (based upon the suspicious tag combination warning) change that to:
highway=cycleway + foot=yes + sidewalk=left

The rule that I mentioned (sorry, wasn't logged in, but anonym was me), specifically way[highway=cycleway][foot][foot!=no ][foot!=use_sidepath ][!segregated]!.unpaved_surface would then trigger the warning Combined foot- and cycleway without segregated, because it (highway=cycleway + foot=yes + sidewalk=left) has no segregated.

Or do I miss something here?

[Famlam]

(p.s.: happy new year :) )

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to Famlam:

The rule from comment 3 would trigger on a cycleway with:
highway=cycleway + foot=yes + segregated=yes + sidewalk=left
Assuming a sidewalk was present, I would then (based upon the suspicious tag combination warning) change that to:
highway=cycleway + foot=yes + sidewalk=left

I was about to say that in this case foot=yes and segregated=yes should be removed instead as sidewalk=left is the tag that allows pedestrians to use the sidewalk of this highway. But then I read ​osmwiki:Sidewalks again and it says: "The above tagging provides information about the physical infrastructure rather than legal access details which can be included using foot=yes/no." So by removing foot=yes the access of the highway would change. Thats not the right way, so highway=cycleway + foot=yes + segregated=yes + sidewalk=left seems to be a full valid tagging example and in the end we can only warn for cases with segregated=no like you suggested at the beginning :)

way[highway=~/^(cycleway|footway|path)$/][segregated=no][sidewalk =~/^(left|right|both)$/] {
  throwWarning: tr("{0} together with {1} and {2}", "{0.tag}", "{1.tag}", "{2.key}");
  group: tr("suspicious tag combination");
}

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to Klumbumbus:

only warn for cases with segregated=no

In the end false positives are still possible: ways where pedestrians are allowed to walk on the lane together with the cyclists and where additional a sidewalk is present. However as already said this seems very unlikely and I think we can live with very few false positives.

New overpass query: ​https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/PQo

[anonymous]

Replying to Klumbumbus:

New overpass query: ​https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/PQo

Looks good to me!

[Famlam]

(Again, I wasn't logged in...)

[Klumbumbus]

In 15722/josm:

fix #18471 - warn about highway=cycleway|footway|path together with segregated=no and sidewalk=left|right|both and warn about values of segregated other than yes|no