[Tagging] Differences in cycleways

Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxford at gmail.com
Sun Jan 9 12:12:00 GMT 2011

On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 4:08 AM,  <john at jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> Does this mean that, should someone else add the cycleway to the map at a later time, the cycleway=track tag should be removed from the motor-vehicle road?

No. As I said earlier in this discussion, even when there are
highway=cycleway ways, I leave the cycleway=track tag in place on the
road (and indeed add it if it isn't already there), so that both
tagging styles are available for data users. It is much easier to
render the cycle tracks beautifully (unlike ocm, for instance) if the
cycleway=track tag is used.

For want of an approved scheme, I also add adjacent=yes to the
highway=cycleway, to indicate to data users that it's adjacent to a
more-dominant feature, though renderers are probably capable of
changing drawing order to sort that out themselves. You can try to
find a way of linking ways with relations, but it'll probably be far
too-complicated ever to be mapper-friendly.

{On a related issue, I concluded for railways that the way to go
(if/when people start mapping tracks individually) was to create a
long-thin infrastructure relation that grouped together tracks and
provided a summary of the infrastructure provision (single track or
double track or quadruple track, mainly). Such things change
relatively infrequently on railways, so that's a viable approach; I
don't think it could be made to work for highways}


More information about the Tagging mailing list