<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">I think the Wiki is fairly up to date on this stuff -= <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Cycle_tracks" class="">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Cycle_tracks</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">A painted lane (whether dotted or solid) is </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">cycleway=lane</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If it is separated from traffic in some way it becomes </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Cycleway=track</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">You can then add detail of the form of separation</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Cycleway:track=kerb</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">There was discussion on this list a while back to try to standardise the types of protection - </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VL0MmHJoapd4JRgDhow0el2H06IJNsK-8KycxtWSaEw/edit?usp=sharing" class="">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VL0MmHJoapd4JRgDhow0el2H06IJNsK-8KycxtWSaEw/edit?usp=sharing</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Needs moving to wiki from the google doc. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">I feel slightly safer on mandatory cycle lanes with only paint compared with advisory ones</div></div></blockquote></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I read some research recently that both are less safe than doing nothing. Till try to dig it out. </div><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 18 Jan 2021, at 16:30, Jon Pennycook <<a href="mailto:jon.pennycook@gmail.com" class="">jon.pennycook@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="auto" class="">I would like a tag to describe how a mandatory cycle lane is separated from motor vehicles (or how a "cycle path" separates pedestrians from cyclists) - paint, wands, orcas, or kerbs/blocks/planters. Maybe something like cycleway:segregation=no/paint/wand/orca/kerb/block). Cycle lanes and cycle paths in West Berkshire have a mixture of segregations. Basingstoke has no mandatory cycle lanes and probably never will, but has a couple of kerb-separated cycle tracks. Wokingham Borough has mandatory cycle lanes using the protective powers of paint. Once there's a tag, routers could then make a distinction between the levels of protection.<div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">I feel slightly safer on mandatory cycle lanes with only paint compared with advisory ones, because mandatory cycle lanes tend to be at least 1.5m wide (advisory ones in Hampshire are often <1m wide, and drivers get angry if you keep a safe distance from the kerb), and the solid white line is more likely to be seen by drivers on side roads.</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Jon</div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, 16:13 Chris Hodges, <<a href="mailto:chris@c-hodges.co.uk" class="">chris@c-hodges.co.uk</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">TBH I can't see any point indicating the difference between mandatory <br class="">
and advisory cycle lanes on a cycling map. The difference applies to <br class="">
drivers, and with the issues over whether mandatory lanes are in fact <br class="">
mandatory in all cases, combined with them being widely ignored, it's <br class="">
just clutter on the display. At least it's unlikely to be read going along.<br class="">
<br class="">
(Personally I can think of quite a few lanes of both types that should <br class="">
be removed to benefit cyclists)<br class="">
<br class="">
On 18/01/2021 13:59, David Woolley wrote:<br class="">
> ...<br class="">
> It also seems to assume that cycle lanes with no explicit type are <br class="">
> mandatory ones. (Unfortunately, cycle lanes have been changing a lot <br class="">
> recently, and, whilst I don't think my example is mandatory, and there <br class="">
> are reasons to think it wouldn't have changed, the cycle lane <br class="">
> landscape is changing rather rapidly.)<br class="">
><br class="">
><br class="">
> _______________________________________________<br class="">
> Talk-GB mailing list<br class="">
> <a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br class="">
> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
Talk-GB mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br class="">
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br class="">
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Talk-GB mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" class="">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br class="">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>