Ask for smoothness on segregated Cycle & Foot paths

[rhhsm]

For segregated Cycle & Foot paths (highway=cycleway/footway/path + bicycle=designated + foot=designated + segregated=yes), SC currently asks for surface of both the cycle path and the foot path. However, these kind of paths are not yet included in the smoothness quest. I see no reason why they shouldn't be included, i.e. for highway=cycleway/footway/path that have cycleway:surface=* and/or footway:surface=*, smoothness should be quested so that cycleway:smoothness and footway:smoothness are set. The same UI that is used for the surface quest for these paths can be used.

In addition, the Dutch tagging tradition of seeing these kind of paths as a cycle path with a sidewalk for pedestrians should also be taken into account, i.e. ways like this one https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6547886 should also be quested for the smoothness of both cycle path and sidewalk.

There may be other properties like width (that I'm not tagging) that are not quested for these kinds of highways (that's why I thought my idea was related to #5445)

[westnordost]

Minus the note about sidewalks, this could be an enhancement of the smoothness quest.

[rhhsm]

Minus the note about sidewalks

Why? Maybe because you're afraid the next thing I'm going to suggest is to ask for smoothness for all sidewalks? I've been thinking about that, but it would be an awful lot of work to survey... ;)

[Helium314]

Asking for sidewalk:surface is already asking smoothness for all sidewalks, be it on a road or on a cycleway. ~Though this case is unclear to me, is it really a segragated cycleway with sidewalk? I.e. two lanes for foot where the foot smoothness should be asked twice?~

[rhhsm]

Asking for sidewalk:surface is already asking smoothness for all sidewalks

If smoothness was predictable from surface then there would be no need for the smoothness tag. In reality, any surface can vary widely in smoothness to a degree that a highway can be impassable for certain vehicles, and that's why the smoothness tag was created.

Though this case is unclear to me, is it really a segragated cycleway with sidewalk? I.e. two lanes for foot where the foot smoothness should be asked twice?

The way I quoted above is one lane for bicycles and one for foot (see https://maps.app.goo.gl/6d5EUCsrRAfk1kP5A left=foot, right=cycle). However the Dutch OSM community decided to tag such a path as a cycleway with sidewalk instead of a segregated way for cycles and pedestrians. They are the same thing in reality so they should be treated in the same way by SC. An issue related to this is #5037

[Helium314]

Dutch OSM community decided to tag such a path as a cycleway with sidewalk instead of a segregated way for cycles and pedestrians

So the tagging of the way you linked is actually wrongly tagged?

[rhhsm]

Dutch OSM community decided to tag such a path as a cycleway with sidewalk instead of a segregated way for cycles and pedestrians

So the tagging of the way you linked is actually wrongly tagged?

It's tagged according to how the Dutch community decided it should be tagged. If you think that decision is wrong, please take it up with the Dutch community. I don't think this is the place to discuss it.

[Helium314]

If such duplicate surface tagging is seen as correct, SC smoothness quests for both sidewalk:surface and footway:surface will certainly be a waste of user's time.

[rhhsm]

If such duplicate surface tagging is seen as correct, SC smoothness quests for both sidewalk:surface and footway:surface will certainly be a waste of user's time.

It's not duplicate, the footway's surface is tagged either as sidewalk:surface (in NL) or as footway:surface (rest of the world), not both

[Helium314]

You linked to a way that has sidewalk:surface AND footway:surface and confirmed that tagging is correct and not duplicate, and then claim it's EITHER sidewalk:surface OR footway:surface.

I really don't get it, sorry.

[rhhsm]

I'm terribly sorry: I linked to a way that is NOT an example of how it should be tagged according to the Dutch way, but it IS an example of what can go wrong using that way of tagging. Looking at the history of the way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6547886/history , I edited it according what I think is the internationally accepted way as a segregated cycle/footway (version #5), which was "corrected" at version#7 to the Dutch tagging way (though without adding sidewalk=left). Then I came along with SC and added footway:surface=paving_stones (version #9) using the surface overlay, where the way shows as having a footway and cycleway part that can have different surfaces, probably because segregated=yes is present (?). The surface of the footway appeared to be missing, so I added it.

I will prepare a proposal to the community forum to deprecate the Dutch way of tagging...

[westnordost]

I'd say, don't waste your time.

[rhhsm]

I'd say, don't waste your time.

I'll give it a try, so you don't have to waste your time adapting SC to the Dutch tagging.

Please mark most of the above discussion as off topic :)

[westnordost]

By the way, I just noticed this thread: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/fietspad-als-straat/108345

[westnordost]

Now you are wasting my time too, making it look like StreetComplete does not handle the Dutch sidewalks-on-cycleways tagging scheme correctly and me having to clarify it. :-/