<html><head></head><body style="zoom: 0%;"><div dir="auto">The difference is nice in theory. Mandatory ones seem to pop up where there's more loading ("I'm not parked"/"only here for a minute") as well as being widely ignored. I wouldn't suggest even a novice routed on that basis - the general state of the road/traffic is much more important and harder to capture. <br><br></div>
<div dir="auto"><!-- tmjah_g_1299s -->Sent from <!-- tmjah_g_1299e --><a href="http://www.bluemail.me/r?b=16421"><!-- tmjah_g_1299s -->BlueMail<!-- tmjah_g_1299e --></a><!-- tmjah_g_1299s --> <!-- tmjah_g_1299e --></div>
<div class="gmail_quote" >On 18 Jan 2021, at 16:43, David Woolley <<a href="mailto:forums@david-woolley.me.uk" target="_blank">forums@david-woolley.me.uk</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="blue">On 18/01/2021 16:11, Chris Hodges wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> TBH I can't see any point indicating the difference between mandatory <br> and advisory cycle lanes on a cycling map. The difference applies to <br> drivers, and with the issues over whether mandatory lanes are<br></blockquote><br>The most obvious one is that advisory lanes can be full of parked cars. <br> Theoretically, at least, there could also be moving cars in them. A <br>mandatory lane should only contain cycles, so should be a much better <br>option.<br><br>(I think it is fairly well known that mandatory lanes require traffic <br>regulations orders, with associated public consultations, so advisory <br>ones are used, as a sop to cyclists, without any real costs except those <br>of the paint for the lines, and for the signs.)<br><br><br><hr><br>Talk-GB mailing list<br>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<br><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>