[Tagging] designated bike lane

Greg Troxel gdt at ir.bbn.com
Tue Jan 4 02:54:37 GMT 2011


Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> writes:

> This raises an interesting philosophical question: Does OSM map what
> *we* consider to be a bike lane (or a park, or a service road, or a
> tertiary highway...) or what *someone else* says it is? The latter
> path is sometimes simpler and gives more consistent, objective
> results: the bike lane here is clearly signed, and can simply be
> marked bicycle=lane. If we take the former option, then we get
> enormous amounts of debate about how to tag even a single entity, as
> seen in this thread: "well, if it were more than 4 feet wide, I'd
> consider it a bike path, otherwise not..."
>
> Me, I lean towards the "someone else" for some things like bike lanes,
> and the "we decide" path when there is no useful authority.

I agree 100%.

To help sharpen this, I'll observe that the debate here has not been
about "is that a bike lane".  It's been about "do we want to be
complicit in calling it a bike lane (even though it clearly is intended
as one) because we don't think it's safe".  The intellectually honest
position in the db is "The government thinks its a bike lane.  Note that
it's too narrow to be safe."  Rendering is harder, but we don't have to
debate that here.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20110103/f5cb4c1b/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Tagging mailing list