[Tagging] Differences in cycleways
wendorff at uni-paderborn.de
Thu Jan 6 10:03:41 GMT 2011
Am 06.01.2011 01:05, schrieb Steve Bennett:
> On 6/01/2011 8:56 AM, Robert Elsenaar wrote:
> I think this has potential, and could possibly render a lot better
> than having a separate highway=cycleway (which, in Mapnik at least,
> tends to get buried under the road and not shown at all).
Take the footway (sidewalk or not) as the third part, and the tag count
footway:separated=yes (but separated from cycleway? from street?
Keep in mind, what you forgot, e.g.
:hazard = restaurant_chairs, flower_buckets, newspaper_vending_machines,
and consider the lack of where a way is - is the cycleway next to the
street and the footway at the outer border or the other way around?, is
this changing at the next bus stop,...
Keep in mind, that for each changing tag value the complete street has
to be split up into more OSM ways; leading to an exploding way count
here, too (I know what I speak about, I tried it here).
It's a common issue to have footway and cycleway along a street. Missing
here too is the distinction of the sides, so you can suffix each of the
values above with :left and :right.
To sum up: Mapping this way a street is going to have very much tags,
"worst case" nearly one hundret and some.
That's not comfortable to manage in any editor I know of yet, and it's
very difficult to check for correctness.
I know, the discussion about the multiple-lane-problem is broken
currently, and there was much discussion about that before I came to OSM
approximately one year ago, but I fear, this is again one issue where a
proper method to model multiple lanes of different kind, with different
separation types would be very important.
> One situation that this would not cope with, that I see surprisingly
> often around here, is where there is both a lane *and* a track.
> Typically the lane is somewhat on the narrow side, and the "track" is
> really just a footpath with signs designating it as acceptable for
Well - add that to the possible tags above, if you want...
> Not sure if this occurs anywhere else, but thought I'd mention it.
> I would also suggest that if the above goes ahead, that there be an
> alternative mechanism using relations that is considered "equivalent".
> So, have a relation that links a track with a highway, giving some of
> the above benefits.
But this is usefull only if it's a widely accepted relation type.
More information about the Tagging