[Patch] Unnecessary tagging: cycleway:surface + surface + highway=cycleway

[Famlam]

Similar to highway=residential, where the key surface refers to the "residential road" and only sidewalk/cycleway are keys on this way that can have a :surface suffix, on highway=cycleway, there is no need to specify cycleway:surface=*. Just surface would be sufficient (and it's definitely not needed to use both).
(The same applies to highway=footway and footway:surface=*)

Affects roughly 2000 ways in Europe:
​https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/X3F

Hence, I'd propose the following rules:

way[/^cycleway:(\w+:)?surface$/][surface][highway=cycleway],
way[/^footway:(\w+:)?surface$/][surface][highway=footway] {
  throwWarning: tr("{0} together with {1} and {2}. Remove {0}.", "{0.key}", "{1.key}", "{2.tag}");
  group: tr("unnecessary tag");
  assertMatch: "way highway=cycleway surface=asphalt cycleway:left:surface=asphalt";
  assertMatch: "way highway=footway surface=paved footway:surface=paved";
  assertNoMatch: "way highway=cycleway surface=asphalt sidewalk:surface=paved";
  assertNoMatch: "way highway=cycleway surface=asphalt footway:surface=paved";
  assertNoMatch: "way highway=unclassified cycleway=lane surface=paving_stones cycleway:surface=asphalt";
  assertNoMatch: "way highway=path cycleway:surface=asphalt footway:surface=paved";
}
way[/^cycleway:(\w+:)?surface$/][highway=cycleway][!surface],
way[/^footway:(\w+:)?surface$/][highway=footway][!surface] {
  throwWarning: tr("{0} together with {1}", "{0.key}", "{1.tag}");
  group: tr("suspicious tag combination");
  assertMatch: "way highway=cycleway cycleway:left:surface=asphalt";
  assertMatch: "way highway=footway footway:surface=paved";
  assertNoMatch: "way highway=cycleway sidewalk:surface=paved";
  assertNoMatch: "way highway=unclassified cycleway=lane cycleway:surface=asphalt";
  assertNoMatch: "way highway=path cycleway:surface=asphalt footway:surface=paved";
  suggestAlternative: "surface";
  fixChangeKey: "{0.key}=>surface";
}

Note: I left out autofix for the first test, in case of i.e. surface=paved and cycleway:surface=paving_stones, where the latter is the most specific in the type of pavement, and thus surface=paving_stones should be used.

p.s. for the cases where it's allowed to use cycleway:surface and footway:surface together, the following might be interesting, but it's rare to encounter such cases, so probably not worth adding :)

way["footway:surface"]["cycleway:surface"][segregated=no][highway]["footway:surface"!=*"cycleway:surface"] {
  throwWarning: tr("{0} and {1} together with {2} and conflicting values", "{0.key}", "{1.key}", "{2.tag}");
  group: tr("suspicious tag combination");
  assertMatch: "way highway=path footway:surface=sett cycleway:surface=asphalt segregated=no";
}

[skyper]

Replying to Famlam:

Note: I left out autofix for the first test, in case of i.e. surface=paved and cycleway:surface=paving_stones, where the latter is the most specific in the type of pavement, and thus surface=paving_stones should be used.

+1, but we need to change the text, too. Simply removing cycleway:surface is not what we want to suggest here, right?

[Famlam]

+1, but we need to change the text, too. Simply removing cycleway:surface is not what we want to suggest here, right?

Right, maybe simply without Remove {0}.? If they remove the "wrong one", the validator will simply warn a second time to use surface instead

[gaben]

A cycleway can be a shared way if tagged with foot=designated|yes, so the following is a valid tagging:

highway=cycleway
foot=designated
cycleway:surface=asphalt
footway:surface=asphalt
surface=asphalt

In this case, the proposed rule suggests removing the cycleway:surface=asphalt which is not good. The same applies to highway=path|footway.

As far as I know, mostly StreetComplete adds the :surface suffixes, not editors directly. When we simplify the tags from the example to surface=asphalt, they will re-add them again without removing the common surface tag.

Also, the numbers have risen since. Today affecting more than 15k ways (the overpass query missing the highway=path).

[Famlam]

@gaben, I'm sorry, but I don't follow what you're saying. Why is it good to have both surface as well as cycleway:surface for a cycleway? The surface tag always refers to the cycleway part, any other additions (footways on a designated cycleway) can indeed have their own *:surface tag, but cycleway:surface means the same as surface on a cycleway, so having them both is just plain wrong (and indeed it seems StreetComplete is the biggest source of this issue). Just like residential:surface, or highway:surface would be bad for a highway=residential, but cycleway:surface on a residential would be perfectly fine if it has a cycleway=lane for instance (and the lane has a different surface than the main road).

Also, I purposefully didn't add highway=path to the check. (What's the default of a path? It can allow or disallow bikes, pedestrians, horses, ..., so as long as no-one makes up path:surface, there's no need for that check to be added)

[gaben]

Replying to Famlam:

Why is it good to have both surface as well as cycleway:surface for a cycleway?

With the example, I meant valid, not ideal/good.

Just like residential:surface, or highway:surface would be bad for a highway=residential, but cycleway:surface on a residential would be perfectly fine if it has a cycleway=lane for instance (and the lane has a different surface than the main road).

Yes, this exactly. See the example, the surface is the same and the rule suggests deleting only cycleway:surface, not both suffixed ones.

Also, I purposefully didn't add highway=path to the check. (What's the default of a path? It can allow or disallow bikes, pedestrians, horses, ..., so as long as no-one makes up path:surface, there's no need for that check to be added)

I think if a highway=residential can have cycleway:surface, then highway=path can have cycleway:surface as well. Of course, only if it's designated as a combined foot- and cycleway (see the ​wiki).

[Famlam]

With the example, I meant valid, not ideal/good.

True, but that's why it's not a throwError.

Yes, this exactly. See the example, the surface is the same and the rule suggests deleting only cycleway:surface, not both suffixed ones.

Why would footway:surface have to be deleted? A cycleway can have a separate - but not designated - footway. Very common in The Netherlands is to have a designated cycleway with a (non-designated) sidewalk for pedestrians (which would be tagged sidewalk:surface, but that's a different story). Typically, they're paved with square bricks while cycleways are either asphalt or paving_stones.

I think if a highway=residential can have cycleway:surface, then highway=path can have cycleway:surface as well. Of course, only if it's designated as a combined foot- and cycleway (see the ​wiki).

Agreed, that's why it's not part of the check :)