[Tagging] designated bike lane

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Tue Jan 4 05:50:42 GMT 2011

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com> wrote:
> 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.

Yeah. Speaking now as a cyclist, I'm perfectly fine with maps that
show "bike lanes" that are actually kind of useless. I struggle to
picture how a map or GPS could accurately convey all the various
shades of desirability of bicycle infrastructure. For me personally, I
might use an indication of a bike lane as a deciding factor between
two roads, but personal experience would determine if I use it again.

So, what can we, OSM do? Probably we want to store both. We want to
know "does the council consider this a bike lane" and "does OSM
consider this a bike lane". It's analogous to posted speed limits and
practical speed limits (where the latter is lower).

And something similar emerges with things like alpine huts, where
similar things with very dissimilar names ("bothy"!) and different
connotations exist in different countries. A local user will probably
want to see tags applied according to local conventions. An
international user will want to see something more objective.


More information about the Tagging mailing list