<html dir="ltr"><head></head><body style="text-align:left; direction:ltr;"><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><div>Okay, it is a contentious issue so here is the oppposite position:</div><div><br></div><div>Drawing cycleways separately destroys very important information: namely the link between the cycleway and the main road. They are useful in situations where the cycleway diverges from the road, including the case of crossroads with separate cycle crossings and the like, but never alongside a main road. I know of no application for which cycleways are relevant which is not seriously hampered by these separate cycleways. If, e.g. , we ever want to have a really good bicycle routing system based on OSM we have to find a way to get rid of these seperately drawn cycleways. Other applications are equally impaired by separate ways. I know e.g. the Fietserbond uses OSM to make maps of problematic situations. This is very difficult with separately drawn ways (if you do not see the problem, try to define a Turbo Overpass query which shows all secundary roads which form part of the cycle node network).</div><div><br></div><div>If I recall correctly the wiki says somewhere that adjacent cycleways should be tagged. In my opinion drawing cycleways separately is only okay if there is really a separation, like a ditch or so. There is a tag to indicate that the cycleway runs right of parked cars, so even that should not be a reason for separate drawing (on a sidenote: this situation is relevant, so indicating it is useful).</div><div><br></div><div>Mappers are misled because they look at areal images up close into thinking that is it important that the line drawing of a cycleway should be dead flush with the areal image. But the most important data are those relationg the cycleway to the main road.</div><div><br></div><div>And don't get me started on the numerous errors introduced by separate mapping. I have had to add connecting ways on literallly hunderds of crossroads so that the map is at least correct in showing which ways cyclists can go. Little known fact: the OSRM bicycle router, available on the main map webpage, deliberately makes errors (like ignoring bicycle=use_sidepath). The reason: this reduces the impact of erroneous mappings with separate cycleways. Actually, I sometimes map cycleways separately even although I know that </div><div>it does not improve the map. Why? Because I know that if I don't do it somebody else will, with a high probability of errors confounding the routers.</div><div><br></div><div>vg,</div><div><br></div><div>JanFi</div><div><br></div><div>Marc Gemis schreef op di 04-01-2022 om 06:25 [+0100]:</div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">IMHO, separate cycleways give a bit more detail than the tag on the main road, e.g. exact location, showing the extra turns, possibility to show that they are protected by an hedge, etc,<div>One should never remove them. Of course cylelanes are not mapped as separate lines.</div><div>Since the separate ways give more information, it is OK for me to replace tags on the main road with a separate way.</div><div><br></div><div>regards</div><div><br></div><div>m</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 8:40 PM Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be <<a href="mailto:talk-be@openstreetmap.org">talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div dir="ltr">Hi,</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Some people prefer the cycleway=* tags and even remove the separate highway=cycleway.</div><div dir="ltr">Others prefer the detail of separate highway=cycleway and remove the cycleway=* tags.</div><div dir="ltr">Which means that at some places the separate cycleways appear, disappear, reappear, redisappear etc.</div><div dir="ltr">So what are the opinions about cycleways these days? Or is this all there is to say about it:<br></div><div dir="ltr"><span>"There are two ways to model cycle tracks. One possibility is to draw separate ways along the roadway which are tagged as <tt dir="ltr" style="background-color:rgb(238,238,255);background-repeat:repeat;background-image:none;background-size:auto;font-size:1em;line-height:1.6"><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway" title="Key:highway" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">highway</a>=<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway" title="Tag:highway=cycleway" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">cycleway</a></tt>. The alternative is to add a <tt dir="ltr" style="background-color:rgb(238,238,255);background-repeat:repeat;background-image:none;background-size:auto;font-size:1em;line-height:1.6"><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway" title="Key:cycleway" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">cycleway</a>=<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dtrack" title="Tag:cycleway=track" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">track</a></tt>
tag to the existing way. Both methods each have their pros and cons.
Notably, a separately tagged cycleway generally allows to capture more
detail, while adding a single tag to an existing way takes much less
time and in many cases can be as accurate. Both methods are in use
today, and there is discussion about when to prefer which method."</span><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Regards,</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">StijnRR<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-be mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
<pre>_______________________________________________</pre><pre>Talk-be mailing list</pre><a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org"><pre>Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</pre></a><pre><br></pre><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be"><pre>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</pre></a><pre><br></pre></blockquote>
</body></html>