<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11.08.2022 16:04, Volker Schmidt
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR7NzqLqHX0v63bGXC5rEV0_GbS9oKt+cz3NwXwVvk7f2g@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi Jens,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(I am a bicycle-centered mapper in Italy.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>I'm currently preparing to map a new cycle track that
was recently completed. We're lucky enough that someone
has filmed this with a drone: <a
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sevJH7AXxU"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sevJH7AXxU</a></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A very forma question: can we use a youtube video as a
source for OSM data? I would not think so. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The luck in this case was that I was able to show it to you easily.
I've already been there twice to survey it for mapping purposes. :)<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR7NzqLqHX0v63bGXC5rEV0_GbS9oKt+cz3NwXwVvk7f2g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><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>The design manual for cycle tracks</div>
</blockquote>
<div>quote? <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.vegvesen.no/globalassets/fag/handboker/n100-n300-og-n302_nye-bestemmelser-for-envegsregulert-sykkelveg-med-fortau.pdf">https://www.vegvesen.no/globalassets/fag/handboker/n100-n300-og-n302_nye-bestemmelser-for-envegsregulert-sykkelveg-med-fortau.pdf</a><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR7NzqLqHX0v63bGXC5rEV0_GbS9oKt+cz3NwXwVvk7f2g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> states they must be elevated from the carriageway, and
optionally with a sidewalk that is even more elevated, and
must be ramped down to the carriageway level at every
junction and be marked as a cycle lane. </div>
</blockquote>
<div>Does this also hold for driveways joining the road? <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, see page 9 of the design manual.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR7NzqLqHX0v63bGXC5rEV0_GbS9oKt+cz3NwXwVvk7f2g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>Also, the design manual states that it must be placed
behind bus stops.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>How does the pedestrian (including wheelchair user) get
to the bus-stop-platform ? She needs to cross the cycle
track that that is between the footway and the bus stop
platform?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, via marked crossing (see page 10).<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR7NzqLqHX0v63bGXC5rEV0_GbS9oKt+cz3NwXwVvk7f2g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> What this video shows is going to be a typical setup
in Norway in the time to come, so I thought I'd prepare a
mapping guide for OSM-NO.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Good idea. <br>
</div>
<div><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> Cycle tracks can be mapped with the carriageway on a
single line</div>
</blockquote>
<div>should be discouraged, in my view, if there is any kind
of barrier (kerb, strip of grass, ...) <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree, but there are vocal differences in opinion on that subject,
so I'll leave that for another day.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR7NzqLqHX0v63bGXC5rEV0_GbS9oKt+cz3NwXwVvk7f2g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> As a single line, a normal scenario will be this:<br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">highway=*
+ cycleway:*=lane + sidewalk=* </font> for the parts
around junctions <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> <font size="2" face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">highway=*
+ cycleway:*=track + sidewalk=*</font> for the middle
parts<br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"><font
size="2">highway=* + cycleway:left/right=track +
sidewalk:left/right</font> </font>for the non-bus
stop-side and<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">
<font size="2">highway=cycleway + sidewalk=*</font></font>
for the bus stop-side<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Just to make sure I understand correctly<br>
</div>
<div>This normal scenario is to tag
motor-traffic-carriageway + two one-way cycle-only ways +
two pedestrian-only ways, all separated from each other by
kerbs?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This "normal scenario" is when the mapper has already chosen to map
on a single line, and I am not questioning that mappers judgement in
the matter. If the mapper has chosen the single-line approach, the
scheme outlined here would be the normal way to map it based on my
understanding of single-line mapping philosophy.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR7NzqLqHX0v63bGXC5rEV0_GbS9oKt+cz3NwXwVvk7f2g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>I presume "Parts around junctions" means the cycle and
pedestrian crossings on the side road, as shown at 27" in
the video.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I meant those stretches of the roadway that are constructed with
cycle lanes (due to the requirement to ramp the tracks down from
their normal elevation).<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR7NzqLqHX0v63bGXC5rEV0_GbS9oKt+cz3NwXwVvk7f2g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>This means you do not map the cycle-pedestrian crossing
on the side road.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That is true. This is a general drawback of the single-line
approach, I believe.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR7NzqLqHX0v63bGXC5rEV0_GbS9oKt+cz3NwXwVvk7f2g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>The video shows only a cycle crossing (bicycle lane with
dashed lines), but where do the pedestrians cross the side
road ???</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I believe that particular junction is not yet completed. I noticed
the same lack of connection.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR7NzqLqHX0v63bGXC5rEV0_GbS9oKt+cz3NwXwVvk7f2g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> Either scheme is fine, depending on what mappers want
to do, so that is NOT what this question is about :)<br>
<br>
The downside of the second approach is we are not
"allowed" to tag the <font size="2" face="Courier New,
Courier, monospace">highway=cycleway</font> as a track.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
What is the problem with this?. cycleway=track is only used
in the case the single-way approach, which is not applicable
in that case.<br>
</div>
<div>With the approach foot=designated / bicycle=designated
people also use highway=track, highway=cycleway instead of
highway=path, if they are happier that way.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The problem:<br>
In the multi-line approach, we would tag the cycle track with
highway=cycleway, because that is what it is legally signed as <img
src="https://lovdata.no/static/SF/sf-20051007-1219-520-01.gif?timestamp=1655819252307"
style="max-width: 100%;" alt="sf-20051007-1219-520-01.gif"
width="37" height="37"> and classified as. But this is also how we
tag a cycleway that is several meters away from the carriageway, or
a cycleway that is completely on its own with no adjacent
carriageway.<br>
<br>
The cycle track is a much more dangerous place for children compared
to a cycleway separated by several meters. As an example, a
schoolgirl riding to school on her bike on a similar track collided
with a friend and then fell onto the carriageway, where she was
struck by a driver (who apparently did not see the need to slow down
when passing a group of children). After this collision, the road
authority built a concrete wall between the two:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://goo.gl/maps/adqyGwiqh6EwX9dc9">https://goo.gl/maps/adqyGwiqh6EwX9dc9</a><br>
<br>
If there are several meters of separation, falling would not have
those consequences.<br>
<br>
So anyone looking at the OSM data would not ble able to know if a
particular highway=cycleway is the safe one suitable for kids, or
the not-so-safe one suitable for adults.<br>
<br>
A cycle track and a cycle path would probably never appear
side-by-side in a real scenario, so the question is knowing if the
cycleway that is there, is one or the other.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR7NzqLqHX0v63bGXC5rEV0_GbS9oKt+cz3NwXwVvk7f2g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> The reason it would be valuable to tag <font
face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">highway=cycleway</font>
as a track in this instance is that a track has
requirements for separation from other mode types that are
more similar to a cycle lane than to an actual bike path
(at least in Norway). So you'll be significantly safer on
a bike path than you will be on a cycle track, and
marginally safer on a cycle track than in a cycle lane.
For that reason, it'd be nice to know if what we have is a
track or a path.<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Could you give pointers to photos of real situations,
please, for the Norwegian cycle track and cycle paths you
are referring to. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Here is an example of a road with a two-sided bike lane, and also a
two-sided bike path:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://kart.finn.no/?lng=5.73957&lat=58.89643&zoom=20&mapType=historicalm-Stavanger-2020%40c">https://kart.finn.no/?lng=5.73957&lat=58.89643&zoom=20&mapType=historicalm-Stavanger-2020%40c</a><br>
<br>
If these bike lanes were instead built as a tracks, as in the drone
video, the added safety is only a low kerb (10 cm), as opposed to
three meters separation for the bike path. Bike paths would still be
significantly safer, especially for kids. But both tracks and paths
would be highway=cycleway.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR7NzqLqHX0v63bGXC5rEV0_GbS9oKt+cz3NwXwVvk7f2g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>How could we tag separately drawn cycleway tracks so
that we know they are tracks?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>This seems to boil down on how to map the Norwegian
situation on the existing tagging schemes in OSM, or even a
translation problem. Should be solvable, as keys and values
are after all only arbitrary strings in OSM. Any meaning of
the strings is to help the mapper, but is not essential to
the way the data works.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
One way of knowing implicitly is to tag the cycle track as
highway=cycleway + oneway=yes (oneway=yes is a legal requirement
any, due to <img
src="https://lovdata.no/static/SF/sf-20051007-1219-526-1-01.gif?timestamp=1655819252307"
style="max-width: 100%;" alt="sf-20051007-1219-526-1-01.gif"
width="20" height="32">). No separated bike path would have that
combination. It's very implicit, though.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Jens<br>
</body>
</html>