<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 21/08/2022 14:06, Jacob Nevins
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:YwIt1lqoaYv2r8zI@chiark.greenend.org.uk">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">[re-sent after subscribing to mailing list -- sorry if you see 2 copies]
I fished out some docs about your scheme (assuming this matches what was
</pre>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">actually built):
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://my.northtyneside.gov.uk/sites/default/files/web-page-galleries/Rake%20Ln%20-%20Billy%20Mill%20Ln%20rounadbout.jpg"><https://my.northtyneside.gov.uk/sites/default/files/web-page-galleries/Rake%20Ln%20-%20Billy%20Mill%20Ln%20rounadbout.jpg></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://my.northtyneside.gov.uk/category/1564/rake-lane-billy-mill-lane-roundabout"><https://my.northtyneside.gov.uk/category/1564/rake-lane-billy-mill-lane-roundabout></a></pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Crikey - £1.6m and the end of the cycleway still punts you
straight into a sign post! :-)</p>
<p> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=5317417538312596">https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=5317417538312596</a><br>
</p>
<p>Thanks for the link - the diagram is as-built AFAICT, and
emphasises the separation between footway and one-way cycleway.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:YwIt1lqoaYv2r8zI@chiark.greenend.org.uk">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I think the closest to that in Cambridge (i.e. with unsignalled
ped-and-cycle-priority crossings) is the Fendon Road roundabout:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7773880586#map=20/52.17931/0.14892&layers=Y"><https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7773880586#map=20/52.17931/0.14892&layers=Y></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/148655/"><https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/148655/></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/residents/travel-roads-and-parking/transport-projects/cycling-pedestrian-improvements/fendon-road-and-queen-edith-s-way-roundabout"><https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/residents/travel-roads-and-parking/transport-projects/cycling-pedestrian-improvements/fendon-road-and-queen-edith-s-way-roundabout></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2021/06/fabulous-fendon-road.html"><https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2021/06/fabulous-fendon-road.html></a></pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Useful examples - the coloured cycleway tarmac should be
mandatory (red in Oxford, Green in Manchester) to emphasise the
crossing. A bus driver friend reports a car driver got confused
and stuck after turning down the narrow cycleway!</p>
<p>`crossing=uncontrolled` + `bicycle=yes`<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:YwIt1lqoaYv2r8zI@chiark.greenend.org.uk">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">...but whoever tagged it chose crossing=uncontrolled for the cycle
crossing, which fails to fully capture the cycle-priority nature of the
crossing. So now I have the same question about how to tag an
unsignalled cycle-only crossing where cyclists have priority :)</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>My attempt was based on the JOSM preset for a Zebra-
`crossing=uncontrolled` which I agree doesn't quite capture the
MUST nature of either Zebra or Parallel. Might be down to some
countries using stripes without priority.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:YwIt1lqoaYv2r8zI@chiark.greenend.org.uk">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">For these sorts of junction systems, it does seem usual to tag the foot
and cycle crossings separately, e.g. these CYCLOPS (signalled)
junctions:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.46765/-2.25758"><https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.46765/-2.25758></a> (not me)
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.22185/0.11204"><https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.22185/0.11204></a> (me)
I think that's right, for the reasons you state. So if we are to show
priority for cycle-only crossings, we do need a way to tag it.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Another possible reason for separation is the difference in
"inbound" and "outbound" highways - at Rake Lane drivers pass
Zebra then Parallel towards the junction, but the reverse
leaving. Sadly the attention of drivers seems towards the
roundabout and some seem not to perceive the Zebra never mind the
less familiar Parallel on the way out.</p>
<p>It's also interesting to see the difference in design - some
place cycleway towards the centre (Rale Lane) others footway
(Cambridge).<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:YwIt1lqoaYv2r8zI@chiark.greenend.org.uk">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">crossing_ref=zebra does feel like a bit of a bodge for a cycle-only
crossing in the UK, depending whether you take 'zebra' to denote the
official definition in the Highway Code etc (which is explicitly about
pedestrians), or the physical appearance. Might still be the best option
currently?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>It was a tad surprising to see the familiar "Belisha Beacons" at
the parallel crossing, further suggesting the Zebra heritage.</p>
<p>Jon spotted `<tt dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"
style="background:#EEF;font-size:1em;line-height:1.6"><bdi
style="white-space:nowrap"><a class="mw-selflink selflink">crossing_ref</a></bdi>=<a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:crossing_ref%3Dtiger&action=edit&redlink=1"
class="new" title="Tag:crossing ref=tiger (page does not
exist)"><bdi>tiger</bdi></a></tt>` which I'd not heard of but
looks good apart from the 'parallel' language used in the HWC.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:YwIt1lqoaYv2r8zI@chiark.greenend.org.uk">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Looks like someone did try to come up with a scheme for explicitly
tagging who has priority at a crossing, but it turned out to be
complicated, and was abandoned:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-December/057071.html"><https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-December/057071.html></a>
(see also followups)</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>`crossing:priority=yes` has some merit, but perhaps
`crossing:priority=cycleway` removes all ambiguity without having
to interpret HWC Rule H1 heirarchy of road users.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:YwIt1lqoaYv2r8zI@chiark.greenend.org.uk">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Here for completeness is an isolated parallel crossing in Cambridge.
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9514771833/history#map=20/52.21754/0.10385&layers=Y"><https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9514771833/history#map=20/52.21754/0.10385&layers=Y></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/114080/"><https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/114080/></a>
Apparently I chose a single node (which seems OK here) with
crossing_ref=parallel; as others have noted, crossing_ref=tiger also
exists, and is more popular in taginfo, both inside and outside the UK:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/crossing_ref#values"><https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/crossing_ref#values></a>
(although personally I still think 'parallel' makes more sense, both
inside and outside the UK).</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I'd agree about one node here - especially as the "main" cycleway
also has to give way to the "crossing" cycleway.</p>
<p>For a combined node, sounds like `<tt dir="ltr"
class="mw-content-ltr"
style="background:#EEF;font-size:1em;line-height:1.6"><bdi
style="white-space:nowrap"><a class="mw-selflink selflink">crossing_ref</a></bdi>=<a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:crossing_ref%3Dtiger&action=edit&redlink=1"
class="new" title="Tag:crossing ref=tiger (page does not
exist)"><bdi>tiger</bdi></a></tt>` or `<tt dir="ltr"
class="mw-content-ltr"
style="background:#EEF;font-size:1em;line-height:1.6"><bdi
style="white-space:nowrap"><a class="mw-selflink selflink">crossing_ref</a></bdi>=<bdi>parallel</bdi></tt>`
which is more about UK-specific HWC language than substance.</p>
<p>For separated nodes, `<tt dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"
style="background:#EEF;font-size:1em;line-height:1.6"><bdi
style="white-space:nowrap"><a class="mw-selflink selflink">crossing_ref</a></bdi>=<bdi>zebra</bdi></tt>`
+ `<tt dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"
style="background:#EEF;font-size:1em;line-height:1.6"><bdi
style="white-space:nowrap"><a class="mw-selflink selflink">crossing_ref</a></bdi>=<bdi>parallel</bdi></tt>`
perhaps?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:YwIt1lqoaYv2r8zI@chiark.greenend.org.uk">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I've no idea what if anything routing engines such as CycleStreets do
with all this. (I suspect this page is not fully up to date:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.cyclestreets.net/help/journey/osmconversion/"><https://www.cyclestreets.net/help/journey/osmconversion/></a>)</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Must agree - "CycleStreets does not yet [Jan 2011] make use of
this information." !</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Thanks again for interesting detail,<br>
</p>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">James
--
James Derrick
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:lists@jamesderrick.org">lists@jamesderrick.org</a>, Cramlington, England
I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me...
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick">https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>