[Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Mon Dec 21 20:26:13 GMT 2009

Steve Bennett wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
>> Never mind simply tagging it loses spatial detail in the process, and
>> complicates routing engines (since turns are often restricted or
>> prohibited from the cycle track across the adjacent road and vice
>> versa).
> I would love to hear more from programmers of routing engines. My intuition
> says that this level of "complication" is very low, but I could be wrong.
> I'm also not sure that turns *are* "ofter restricted or prohibited". You're
> saying that in a left-drive country, cyclists in a cycling lane/track can't
> turn right in situations where motorists can? What do they have to do,
> continue to the next intersection, then double back? I find this implausible
> - why invest the money in a cycling track, then hobble cyclists like that?

In many places, it's illegal to turn across a restricted lane, be
it bike or otherwise.  In these cases, if you want to turn across the
lane, you go around the block in the opposite direction similar to a
cloverleaf.  From cycletracks where there's a median between it and the
adjacent road, the cycletrack either has it's own exits controlled by
traffic signal across the adjacent road or expects you to go around the
block, depending on whether or not there is space to provide
exit/enterance ramps.

More information about the Tagging mailing list