Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Cycleways with bicycle=no but also mofa=yes|designated or moped=yes|designated should not raise a warning #484

Closed
jdhoek opened this issue Jun 1, 2022 · 4 comments · Fixed by #509
Labels

Comments

@jdhoek
Copy link
Contributor

jdhoek commented Jun 1, 2022

There is check in data/deprecated.json for the combination of bicycle=no and highway=bicycle:

{
    "old": {"highway": "cycleway", "bicycle": "no"},
    "replace": {"highway": "path", "bicycle": "no"}
},

This makes sense, and would usually point to a mapping error. However, in the Netherlands this raises this warning for a common feature on Dutch roads.

We have three variants of cycleways in our legal code. Two of them are relevant here: the G11 which is mandatory for bicycle and mofa, but forbidden for moped, and the G12a, which is mandatory for all three of these road user categories. When a cycleway switches from G11 to G12a or vice versa, mopeds use small links to move to or from the main road:

Screenshot from 2022-06-01 17-01-31

We've settled on the following tagging scheme for these links:

highway          cycleway
bicycle          no
foot             no
mofa             no
moped            designated
oneway           yes
traffic_sign     NL:D104 (or) NL:D103

This is the link shown on that photograph on the map.

These are still highway=cycleway in the Dutch context, because mopeds are one of the designated road user classes for cycleways in the Netherlands (provided it is signed with a G12a sign).

Is there a way to exclude these from the deprecation warning? That is, keep the check, but don't suggest it if either mofa or moped is set to a permissive value?

@tyrasd tyrasd added bug Something isn't working deprecating labels Jun 21, 2022
@tyrasd
Copy link
Member

tyrasd commented Jun 22, 2022

Is there a way to exclude these from the deprecation warning?

Unfortunately, this is not possible to implement in the current schema. 😞

The next best thing we can do is to deactivate the deprecation warning completely for now and think about a better solution for this.

@jdhoek
Copy link
Contributor Author

jdhoek commented Jun 22, 2022

Can that be done regionally? (i.e., just the Netherlands.)

@tyrasd
Copy link
Member

tyrasd commented Jun 22, 2022

I was just about to write that that would also not be possible (because the deprecation rules are really very basic), but then I remembered that there is also the functionality of preset replacements which can use the whole functionality of a preset, including regional limitations. It's going to be a bit of a hassle, but I think it can work. Let me give it a try.

tyrasd added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 22, 2022
* adds NL-specific preset for "moped links" (highway=cycleway + bicycle=no + moped=designated)
* replace deprecation rule for `highway=cycleway` + `bicycle=no` with special "replacement" preset (which excludes the NL)
@tyrasd
Copy link
Member

tyrasd commented Jun 22, 2022

see #509 for a possible fix

tyrasd added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 22, 2022
* adds NL-specific preset for "moped links" (highway=cycleway + bicycle=no + moped=designated)
* replace deprecation rule for `highway=cycleway` + `bicycle=no` with special "replacement" preset (which excludes the NL)
@tyrasd tyrasd closed this as completed in 4b94074 Jun 22, 2022
tyrasd added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 22, 2022
* adds NL-specific preset for "moped links" (highway=cycleway + bicycle=no + moped=designated)
* drop deprecation rule for `highway=cycleway` + `bicycle=no`
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants