New quest: In what direction can bicycles ride on this sidewalk?

[wielandb]

This PR adds a quest "In what direction are bicycles allowed to travel here?" that is asked for sidewalk-like ways. Background is the problem that (at least in germany) cycling on sidewalks (if allowed) is usually only allowed in one direction (the direction of traffic on this side), but it is possible in StreetComplete to convert a sidewalk into a sidewalk with a cycleway or where cycling is allowed, but currently no way to enter the direction of allowed travel for bicycles.
Implemented based on AddOnewayBicycle in SCEE by @mcliquid.

Potentially closes #4827

Things that are still to-do/to-sort-out:

• Quest icon: Do we want to use the one from SCEE? (Currently implemented like that)
• Direction icons: There was discussion if they are enough to show what is beeing entered, or if other icons should be used (Currently the oneway ones are implemented)
  • Answer wording: Is the current wording under the icons okay to communicate what is asked or should it be different?
• Enabled countries: Currently only enabled in Germany, Austria, Denkmark, Nederlands, Finland, Norway but other countries could be added if the need arises.
• Regarding seperate sidewalk quest: I do not think there is the explicit need for such a quest before this one can be greenlit. But if such a functionality is wanted, my idea would be to intregrate it into the sidewalk-overlay. Paths could be clickable and instead of all foot-paths beeing blue only those that are sidewalk-like could be blue, all others black and when tapping such a path a combobox or checkbox "This is a sidewalk" could pop up, but there should be separate discussion for that.

[RubenKelevra]

That path situation gets uglier by the day.

If you really think we should parse footway=* on non-footway ways as valid, okay. But the rest of my complains are still valid:

• If footway=* and is_sidepath=* disagree, we should not match.
• If this the goal is to map oneways along a road, we should check for cycleway=track|separate and otherwise not match. Otherwise we will match all cycleway infrastructure, even when not along a road, so the scope would be different.

Btw: The title does state the quest is "In what direction can bicycles ride on this sidewalk?" but the changeset comment is:

"Specify in which direction cyclists may ride this path"

While the question shown to the user is even more ambitious:

"In what direction are you allowed to ride this path?"

I think we should be more specific and say "cyclists"/"cycle", as ride could mean mofas, scooter, horses etc. just to avoid confusion.

And I think "sidewalk" would be also more specific than "path".

[westnordost]

Let's not get into such details as long as @wielandb himself is not actually done with this PR. Note that this is a draft.

[wielandb]

That path situation gets uglier by the day.

If you really think we should parse footway=* on non-footway ways as valid, okay. But the rest of my complains are still valid:

• If footway=* and is_sidepath=* disagree, we should not match.

Why? I can see situations where highway=* and footway=* have some wild values, but as long as there is something indicating that this is meant to represent a sidewalk that you can ride a bicycle on, we should ask the quest.

• If this the goal is to map oneways along a road, we should check for cycleway=track|separate and otherwise not match. Otherwise we will match all cycleway infrastructure, even when not along a road, so the scope would be different.

I would not check for separate, as I think it's meant to tag that there is a cyclepath somewhere separate from this way, not that this way is a separate cyclepath. So tags regarding its conditions should also not be put on this way.

Btw: The title does state the quest is "In what direction can bicycles ride on this sidewalk?" but the changeset comment is:

"Specify in which direction cyclists may ride this path"

While the question shown to the user is even more ambitious:

"In what direction are you allowed to ride this path?"

I think we should be more specific and say "cyclists"/"cycle", as ride could mean mofas, scooter, horses etc. just to avoid confusion.

And I think "sidewalk" would be also more specific than "path".

Yeah I agree, we should speak of cycling unanimously if cycling is what we're tagging.

[westnordost]

Quest icon: Do we want to use the one from SCEE? (Currently implemented like that)

No. The icon is misleading. It suggests that both directions is the default unless signed otherwise. That oneway sign is not used for cycleways. Instead, I'd suggest something like (on the magenta background):

• ⇅ (mimicing the sign a bit)
• ⇅ framed into a white rectangle with black borders (mimic the sign even more closer, but busier)
• ⇅ or ↕ on cycleway (instead of bicycle pictogram, it is already clear from the color)

Direction icons: There was discussion if they are enough to show what is beeing entered, or if other icons should be used (Currently the oneway ones are implemented)

Yeah, sure, they are clear to me. I don't know how they could be clearer.

P.S: Your German translation will be overwritten by the next import from POEditor, it makes no sense to supply it in the PR (but it also doesn't hurt anyone).

[westnordost]

better to each link to the source of this information, as comments, if known. @RubenKelevra did some research in the linked ticket.

[westnordost]

As noted in the linked ticket, it must be clear that the user must look for an explicit sign, just like it must be clear in the maxspeed quest. Something like "Does a sign indicate that cyclists may go both directions here? If not, in which direction do cyclists go here?". Now, that's a bit long, but this is the information that must come across. So, another option is, if not to put this into the question, put it below the question into the quest form but above the item selection.

Also, I wouldn't refer to a cycle track as a "sidewalk", also not in German. I don't think this is an issue though, you can just write "here" instead of "on this sidewalk". The type of thing should already be written below the quest title.

[westnordost]

This explanation doesn't really explain why it is disabled. The reason why it is disabled is not that it is specific signs, but because the user potentially needs to walk to the next intersection to see that sign, and that may be a little far.

Maybe use similar wording as for the maxspeed quest.

[wielandb]

No. The icon is misleading. It suggests that both directions is the default unless signed otherwise. That oneway sign is not used for cycleways. Instead, I'd suggest something like (on the magenta background):

⇅ (mimicing the sign a bit)
⇅ framed into a white rectangle with black borders (mimic the sign even more closer, but busier)
⇅ or ↕ on cycleway (instead of bicycle pictogram, it is already clear from the color)

Some designs I came up with. Pick your favourites. 🤗

A	B	C	D	E

[mcliquid]

Spontaneously A or E :)

[westnordost]

all are too busy, too many elements (bicycle track plus two arrows, plus bicycle icon, plus more). This is why my suggestion was to *only* have the arrows, or *only* have the arrows inside a white box, or when houng with the bicycle track, only have a double-sided arrow (not two arrows) within it and no bicycle icon at all. In general, try to not have more than two distinct elements in the icon, best, just one. El 17 de abril de 2026 14:39:02 CEST, mcliquid ***@***.***> escribió:

…

mcliquid left a comment (streetcomplete/StreetComplete#6817) Spontaneously A or E :) -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #6817?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABDSDGWC4RGJ5PMKVIE6RKT4WIQWNA5CNFSNUABFM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQXTIMRWHAYDGNJVHA2KM4TFMFZW63VHMNXW23LFNZ2KKZLWMVXHJNLQOJPWG33NNVSW45C7N5YGK3S7MNWGSY3L#issuecomment-4268035584 You are receiving this because you commented. Message ID: ***@***.***>