warn if foot/cycle way is missing segregated=*

[Klumbumbus]

as suggested in ticket:17542#comment:12.
​osmwiki:Key:segregated says This key has no default value and should be tagged on all shared ways!

[mkoniecz]

"should be tagged on all shared ways" - I am a bit dubious about it, does it make any sense to tag it on say bicycle=designated foot=designated surface=dirt? It is clear that it is not going to be segregated.

I feel that Wiki should be edited.

At least in ​https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/pull/1135 I decided that bothering users about segregated status of unpaved ways is a waste of time.

[Klumbumbus]

OK, we can ommit the warning for unpaved surfaces.

[Klumbumbus]

In 15268/josm:

fix #17973 - warn about Combined foot- and cycleway without segregated (except if surface is any kind of unpaved)

[anonymous]

Replying to mkoniecz:

does it make any sense to tag it on say bicycle=designated foot=designated surface=dirt? It is clear that it is not going to be segregated.

That's okay, good point. But is it a valid tagging? I can't think of any road which is signposted with that blue table and the road is unpaved. Can anyone link examples?

[Klumbumbus]

Replying to anonym:

Can anyone link examples?

​https://www.thueringer-allgemeine.de/leben/vermischtes/aerger-ueber-schotter-auf-dem-radweg-bei-naegelstedt-id225377539.html

[Klumbumbus]

​https://www.noz.de/lokales/meppen/artikel/1644254/meppen-rutschgefahr-fuer-radfahrer-an-der-bruecke
The article says that they used surface=fine_gravel (due to environmental and flooding regulations and for optical reasons) but will change it to paving_stones as it didn't proove itself and cyclists could slip there.

[mkoniecz]

Can anyone link examples?

Kraków, Poland has some insane bicycle "infrastructure". I mapped once bicycle=designated foot=designated surface=dirt - unfortunately I am not going to be able to provide a photo, as it is now gone and replaced by a residential building.

​http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Lt2 finds for example ​https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/240498502 that continues to be correct - as far as this way is concerned ​https://www.google.pl/maps/@50.0602485,19.9007153,3a,45.3y,314.93h,81.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sElGMdDTlzBcuk5elDE6Vbg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 is still up to date (some other things changed but this cycleway segment remains in limbo)

[Klumbumbus]

In 15402/josm:

fix #18183, see #17973 - don't warn about "Combined foot- and cycleway without segregated" in case of foot=use_sidepath or bicycle=use_sidepath

[Klumbumbus]

(see also #18196)

[Klumbumbus]

In 15524/josm:

see #17973, fix #18331 - don't warn about missing segregated if bicycle=dismount is used