<div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Hi,<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I have no real preference between one or the other. I think it is much harder to do things right with separate ways though. For example, a cycleway-track that is only seperated by a boardstone implies that you can make a u-turn or take a left at any point. I don't see how you can map that on a seperate way.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Then it also makes relations for routes more complicated, and it means you have to split private driveways along the cycleway.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It's not that hard to map a lot of details on a single way. For the surface example mentioned, there's <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway:surface" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway:surface</a></div><div dir="auto">And there's plenty of tags to describe the division between road and cycle lane as well. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I think the biggest disadvantage is that it goes against the trend to micromap geometries, and might thus get replaced over time with seperate ways. This is also an issue where people map the actual road surfaces as polygons. I think there we need a clear separation between roads as a network, and roads as a type of land cover/ land use. Maybe something similar could work for cycle lanes as well. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I also think it's pretty clear that only cycle tracks can ever be mapped separately. My one rule of thumb is if the geometry of the way is really significantly different from the main road. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It is indeed a little annoying that separate cycleways cannot be queried by an Overpass query. For an analysis for Gents Milieu Front, we worked around that quite handily because of the use_sidepath tag. You do need an advanced geospatial algorithm to find the actual cycleway that is mapped separately, but an advanced data-user can do that. In the end, we don't map for the end user (yeah, we try to make their lives easier, but not at any cost).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div>More importantly, I think we have to accept the lack of consensus. Changing from separate to on-the-way and vice versa should never be done ONLY because you prefer a certain tagging style. Do it when correcting mistakes, or if you're adding a lot more cycleway detail. If you can see that someone has put a lot of effort in current mapping, contact them first. If you see that that same someone has made a lot of errors, explain those errors - otherwise they might continue making them! Inactive mappers won't reply, so you might not bother there. If active mappers ignore you though, they HAVE to read and reply. We can even enforce that when it's really needed.</div><div><br></div><div>All the best,</div><div>Joost<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Op vr 7 jan. 2022 11:55 schreef Raf De Ryck <<a href="mailto:raf.de.ryck@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">raf.de.ryck@gmail.com</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi,<div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 53.35pt 10pt 0cm;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 53.35pt 10pt 0cm;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif" lang="EN-US">In particular cases adding a cycleway even if it is physically
a cycle lane can be usefull to pass essential information.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 53.35pt 10pt 0cm;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif" lang="EN-US">Some cyclists avoid cobble stones and sett. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 53.35pt 10pt 0cm;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif" lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size:13.3333px">Bergstraat is a road in cobble stone having an adjacent cyclelane.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 53.35pt 10pt 0cm;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif" lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=17/50.78425/5.29287" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=17/50.78425/5.29287</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 53.35pt 10pt 0cm;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">As touristic cycle routes are passing on the road, the
sidewalk was transformed into a cycle lane.</span><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 53.35pt 10pt 0cm;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">So I drew a separated “highway=cycleway” alongside
the road.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 53.35pt 10pt 0cm;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">As far as I know, a tag at the </span>highway<span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> level to add a cycle
lane cannot pass this information to the end user.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 53.35pt 10pt 0cm;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 53.35pt 10pt 0cm;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Raf</span></p></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Op wo 5 jan. 2022 om 14:07 schreef Matthieu <<a href="mailto:matthieu@gaillet.be" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">matthieu@gaillet.be</a>>:<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><div><br></div>I would personally look a how it Is done elsewhere. And for that matters, I guess that NL is probably the place to look at. As far as I can tell the segregated cycleways are always mapped separately.<div><br></div><div>The wiki explains clearly when to not use them : <i>Cycling infrastructure that is an inherent part of a road - particularly "cycle lanes" which are a part of the road - should usually not be tagged as a separate cycleway, but by adding the cycleway=* tag to an existing highway=* instead.<br><br></i><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 5 Jan 2022, at 13:30, Jan Cnops <<a href="mailto:jan.cnops@scarlet.be" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">jan.cnops@scarlet.be</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div 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:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:2px solid rgb(114,159,207);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" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:2px solid rgb(114,159,207);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 noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">highway</a>=<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway" title="Tag:highway=cycleway" rel="nofollow noreferrer noreferrer" 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 noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">cycleway</a>=<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dtrack" title="Tag:cycleway=track" rel="nofollow noreferrer noreferrer" 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" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be" rel="noreferrer noreferrer 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" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"><pre>Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</pre></a><pre><br></pre><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"><pre>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</pre></a><pre><br></pre></blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>Talk-be mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-be mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-be mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-be@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Talk-be@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
</div>