[Tagging] Shoulder and traffic indicator tags

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Thu Jul 29 23:28:21 BST 2010


On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Daniel Tremblay <tremblad at gmail.com> wrote:
> So, if I come back to my little cyclist need, I wonder if I could simply put
> cycleway=shoulder.  That would show that: there is a shoulder, it is large
> enough to accomodate cycling, cycling is authorized on this road, shoulder
> is not reserved for emergency, ...

I was just thinking about motorways where cycling is restricted to the
shoulder a few days ago, and came up with cycleway=shoulder as a
possible solution.  Yeah, I think cycleway=shoulder is a good
solution, especially in cases where bicycles are not permitted on the
roadway itself.

The only hesitation I have is whether or not we might want to use
something more generic, so we can indicate when shoulders useful for
pedestrian access are available as well.

> With about the same logic in mind, I
> could say cycleway=no_shoulder, meaning that that road is often used by
> cyclists and the traffic is low enough for a relatively safe sharing of the
> road between car and bicycle even if there is pratically no shoulder (I have
> an example of that near my home).

I don't like that one.  Traffic should be a separate tag.  Along with
speed limit and number of lanes, that should be enough info for the
routers/renderers to make a reasonable decision (preferably with the
input of the end user).  The problem with the subjective
cycleway=no_shoulder is simply that "relatively safe" differs from
person to person, and even from trip to trip.

> As I am suggesting adding values to the cycleway tag, I still believe that
> the shoulder indicator would be usefull ...
>
> Any thought on this?

Yeah, more tags for shoulders would be great.  The only problem is
they probably won't be heavily mapped.  Whereas the cycleway=shoulder
tag might get a bit more use.



More information about the Tagging mailing list