<div dir="ltr">Not trying to be overly critical here, but I'm struggling to how such a scheme is beneficial compared to moving more towards unifying bicycle facilities with the rest of lane tagging. Especially given how cycleways tend to be part of streets separated only by paint, and increasingly often the cycleway is not just a painted gutter pan these days.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 3:40 PM Volker Schmidt <<a href="mailto:voschix@gmail.com">voschix@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Interesting proposal.</div><div><br></div><div>I think I understand how you intend to go about this for the cases cycleway=lane and cycleway=track, i.e. when the cycling infrastructure is tagged on the highway of the road they are parallel to.</div><div><br></div><div>How would you handle the case that the cycleway|segregated-cycle-foot-way|non-segregated-foot-cycle-way is tagged as a separate way or the case where the cycleways and footways are drawn as separate highways?</div><div>... and the tedious problem of adoing the not-required tag on hundreds of thousands of existing ways and all the aspects of full backwatrds compatibility?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Needs a lot of thinking still before this can become a proposal, I think.<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 22:11, Alex <<a href="mailto:supaplex@riseup.net" target="_blank">supaplex@riseup.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>As a supplement to this discussion, I would like to mention the
proposed "separation" scheme that we have been experimenting with
in Berlin for some time:
<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/cycleway:separation" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/cycleway:separation</a>
(former "protection").<br>
</p>
<p> It is mainly intended for mapping Protected Bike Lanes and
similar types of cycle paths, but can also be used to classify
lane markings (especially solid and dashed lines, but also special
forms like pictogram/surface symbolisations).<br>
<br>
In my opinion, it should be possible to extract all the
information from (1) the lane class (lane, track), (2) this type
of marking and (3) the signage (designated access or traffic sign)
in order to be able to make a statement about accessibility for
other vehicles, compulsory use etc. in connection with the country
and its laws – thus there would no longer be a need to record an
"interpreted" value such as "cycleway:lane", but rather everything
can be extracted from attributes that can really be seen on the
ground without having any knowledge of the law.</p>
<p>Alex<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>Am 31.01.21 um 23:06 schrieb Volker
Schmidt:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>OK, let's take this up again.
I think we can live with the advisory lane if we agree that this means cars
are advised to keep out.
But, this must be a new value, not a sub:value.
For the very simple reason that there is no way of adding
cycleway:lane=exclusive to the existing 500k cycleway=lane and variants
like cycleway:right|leftboth=lane, in order to distinguish them from the
new lane-sub-type.
I suspect that many advisory lanes are tagged as traditional "full" lanes.
On the French Bicycle wiki page they describe the tagging of their
Chaucidou roads, which have soft or advisory lanes on both sides with
simple cycleway=lanes tag.
So it will in any case be a national scheme, bout which I am not terribly
happy.
Volker
Here are the numbers from Taginfo
307 581
*cycleway* <a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway" target="_blank"><https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway></a>
*lane* <a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway=lane" target="_blank"><https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway=lane></a>
124 329
*cycleway*:right <a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aright" target="_blank"><https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aright></a>
*lane* <a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aright=lane" target="_blank"><https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aright=lane></a>
47 113
*cycleway*:left <a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aleft" target="_blank"><https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aleft></a>
*lane* <a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aleft=lane" target="_blank"><https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aleft=lane></a>
5 310
*cycleway*:both <a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aboth" target="_blank"><https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aboth></a>
*lane* <a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aboth=lane" target="_blank"><https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aboth=lane></a>
1 891
cycleway:right:lane
<a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aright%3Alane" target="_blank"><https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aright%3Alane></a>
advisory
<a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aright%3Alane=advisory" target="_blank"><https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aright%3Alane=advisory></a>
1 606
cycleway:both:lane
<a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aboth%3Alane" target="_blank"><https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aboth%3Alane></a>
advisory
<a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aboth%3Alane=advisory" target="_blank"><https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aboth%3Alane=advisory></a>
1 414
cycleway:lane <a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Alane" target="_blank"><https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Alane></a>
advisory <a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Alane=advisory" target="_blank"><https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Alane=advisory></a>
994
cycleway:left:lane
<a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aleft%3Alane" target="_blank"><https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aleft%3Alane></a>
advisory
606
Cycleway:lane
exclusive
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 15:46, Tobias Zwick <a href="mailto:osm@westnordost.de" target="_blank"><osm@westnordost.de></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Right, and this tagging solves this problem:
<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway:lane" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway:lane</a>
"Real" cycle lanes:
cycleway=lane
cycleway:lane=exclusive
"Advisory"/suggestion/unsafe/purely cosmetic/dashed/...:
cycleway=lane
cycleway:lane=advisory
I mentioned a (string of) forum discussions that led to this tagging
suggestion. Here is the last forum discussion:
<a href="https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=61427" target="_blank">https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=61427</a>
In it, you will also find the reasons why cycleway=soft_lane was ruled out.
Tobias
On 19/01/2021 00:18, Volker Schmidt wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>The problem is that all over Italy funding is available for these
"cheap" cycle lanes (they do not need any vertical signposting, just
paint on the asphalt)
We need to map them in OSM, and we need to map them differently from the
"classical" bicycle lanes. With my hat as active member in a cyclists'
association, I see a need to distinguish between the two types, because
they are legally very different (and in the view of many also even more
dangerous than the old types, simply because they are much narrower,
less visible and legally open to be used by cars.
The other thing is that we have two different keys in the database. One
as part of an rejected proposal, the newer one was inserted in the wiki
after an inconclusive discussion in the German OSM forum.
The older (rejected) proposal cycleway=soft_lane has the advantage over
the newer cycleway:lane=advisory|mandatory in the sense that it does not
have the need to retrofit the "mandatory" on the non-advisory lanes. It
would create an additional cycleway class and not a new subclass of the
lane class of cycleways.
This would work in Italy, as we did not have soft lanes until a couple
of months ago.
Other countries. like the Netherlands and Germany have had this type of
soft lanes already for many years. This may pose the problem that many
(all?) soft lanes have been tagged as normal lanes.
<
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail</a>>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre> Virus-free. <a href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a>
<
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail</a>>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre><#m_9164321382758350603_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 18:11, Marc_marc <<a href="mailto:marc_marc@mailo.com" target="_blank">marc_marc@mailo.com</a>
<a href="mailto:marc_marc@mailo.com" target="_blank"><mailto:marc_marc@mailo.com></a>> wrote:
Le 18.01.21 à 17:51, Volker Schmidt a écrit :
> There is no clear definition in the wiki, but from the wording
> I assume that their use is not mandatory
I have the same understanding,
even though I've never seen this traffic sign.
> So the value "advisory" is wrong.
In italy. or you have a global knowledge ?
So 2 issues :
- improve the wiki
- 14 objects in Italy :) start an editor and fix it :)
you could also propose a validation rule for iD and josm
so the user receives a warning before uploading
Regards,
Marc
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a> <a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"><mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org></a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank"><https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging></a>
<
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail</a>>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre> Virus-free. <a href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a>
<
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail</a>>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre><#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre></pre>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div>