[Tagging] Differences in cycleways

Peter Wendorff wendorff at uni-paderborn.de
Thu Jan 6 22:15:36 GMT 2011


Hi Robert.

Of course that's something just not included yet, but I think it should 
be kept in mind while polishing your idea.

I thought about the problem of sidewalks more than a few hours, so it's 
not a fast reaction to your mail only.

Complexity IS an argument to keep in mind when elaborating new ideas.
If you have counter arguments or anything why your new idea is better 
regardless of the complexity drawback: fine.

I simply want to avoid you stumbling over that issue after more work 
than necessary. Please read it as criticism, that should be as much 
constructive as possible - with the problem that I have no idea how to 
deal with that drawback (well - beside ignoring it).

regards
Peter

Am 06.01.2011 20:25, schrieb Robert Elsenaar:
> @Peter: This reaction is just the that I expected. You include at the 
> moment not tagged features (seperated footways/sidewalks) to a 
> discussion about cycleway tracks. Please do not use complicity to 
> attack new ideas.
>
> Let go back to the base of my question:
> cycleway=track
> =============
> Who can give me examples on Google street view of what we have to 
> concider to be cycleway-tracks?
> - Go to Google map Streetview
> - find a good example of what you consider to be a cycleway=track
> - Use the "Link" in the left upper corner
> - Post this link.
>
> Let me start: 
> http://maps.google.nl/maps?hl=nl&ie=UTF8&ll=52.235698,5.701776&spn=0.006163,0.021136&z=16&layer=c&cbll=52.235696,5.701937&panoid=amiIS_Sdj-ssgyQipVgJ3Q&cbp=12,274.9,,1,4.23
> This is a real cycleway track.
>
> -Robert-
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- From: Peter Wendorff
> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 11:03 AM
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Differences in cycleways
>
> Am 06.01.2011 01:05, schrieb Steve Bennett:
>>  On 6/01/2011 8:56 AM, Robert Elsenaar wrote:
>>> Solution:
>>> ============
>>> highway=secundary
>>> name=Duinweg
>>> surface=asphalt
>>> maxspeed=50
>>> cycleway=track
>>> cycleway:surface=paving_stones
>>> cycleway:maxspeed=30
>> 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).
> -1
> Take the footway (sidewalk or not) as the third part, and the tag count
> explodes:
> footway=track,
> footway:surface=paving_stones
> footway:width=1.20
> footway:separated=yes (but separated from cycleway? from street?
> standing alone?)
>
> Keep in mind, what you forgot, e.g.
> :maxheight
> :hazard = restaurant_chairs, flower_buckets, newspaper_vending_machines,
> bollards,...
>
> 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 
>> cyclists.
> 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.
> +10
> But this is usefull only if it's a widely accepted relation type.
>
> regards
>
> Peter
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
> Tekst ingevoegd door Panda GP 2011:
>
> Als het hier gaat om een ongevraagde e-mail (SPAM), klik dan op de 
> volgende link om de e-mail te herclasseren: 
> http://localhost:6083/Panda?ID=pav_1541&SPAM=true&path=C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\Panda%20Security\Panda%20Global%20Protection%202011\AntiSpam
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>




More information about the Tagging mailing list