[Potlatch-dev] What do the new cycleway values mean?

[Andy Allan]

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Dave Stubbs <osm.list at randomjunk.co.uk> wrote:
>> Segregated cycle path: A path where cyclists and pedestrians are
>> separated by a painted line or kerb.
>
> Sounds an awful lot like cycleway=track to me.
>
>> Shared cycle path: A path where cyclists and pedestrians share the
>> full width of the path.
>
> That's what we, in Australia, call a "bike path" and tag
> "highway=cycleway, foot=designated, bicycle=designated".

Aargh, what a lot of confusion. The cycleway=shared|segregated is an
option for standalone ways (either highway=cycleway or highway=path)
to indicate whether the bikes and pedestrians share the same tarmac.
In the UK there are two white-on-blue street signs - one with a man
and a bike beside one another with a white line between them (i.e.
segregated) and one with the man above the bike and no dividing line
(i.e. shared). There is a third sign (cycling only) but that can be
expressed by bicycle=yes foot=no etc.

See http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/transport/traffic/traffic_management/cycle_lane_road_markings.htm
for examples. I have no idea how common / consistent these signs are
around the world.

They can't really be used on road-type highways, since they clash with
the lane/track designation.

>> Added by Shaun in December "to get more accurate cycle path
>> information for routing purposes (e.g. CycleStreets)"
>
> That's all well and good for CycleStreets, but I'm iffy about having
> it in an international edition of Potlatch. It makes choosing the
> right cycleway tag absurdly difficult.

Users shouldn't need to worry about this. If they can pick various
options then the tags can be sorted out behind the scenes.

> Another issue here...why is "a path where cyclists and pedestrians
> share the full width of the path" an option on a *road*? Is it
> implying that in addition to the road, there is a parallel shared bike
> path? Eck...very unintuitive.

That sounds like it's in error, I can have a look at map features to
see what's going on.

Cheers,
Andy