[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

[Hubert]

Hallo, 

I didn’t want to bring it up on the discussion page yet, but I’m working a way to double represent road adjacent cycle ways/ cycle tracks as part of the road way and also on the separate  way.

It is far from being ready for representation, but it just fits the discussion right now. It has some ideas for distinguishing “near” cycle tracks (separated by a curb only) and “far” ones, too. My ideas are being discussed on the German mailing list and can be found on this wiki page: http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/User:Hubert87/DoubleRepresentation

 

As for having “cycleway=track” on the street-osm-way: There are cases where it is better to have it on the road itself. For example when rendering cycle ways in lower zoom levels. 

 

Happy Holidays

Hubert

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com] 
Sent: Dienstag, 23. Dezember 2014 09:52
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

 

 

2014-12-23 8:17 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at gmail.com>:

"cycleway=track"

I propose to treat this tag as a special case of fixme - it indicates 
some sort of cycleway parallel to road, without any additional details.

In theory it is possible to add tags that specify surface, side of road,
width by tags like cycleway:track:left:surface, but it is ridiculous.

Especially specifying geometry (where cycleway is) is
nearly impossible (and sometimes impossible in any sane way -

sometimes cycleway is next to road but distance changes).


These things are trivial for tagging as a separate way 
(with highway=cycleway with normal set of tags). Especially 
geometry is defined in a standard way, not by some ridiculous tags.



completely agree to everything here. Also adding tags for parallel ways to the "main highway" would require enormous splitting fragmentation on the main highway if you start to map the details, leading to a less maintainable map.

cheers,
Martin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20141224/a362fd60/attachment-0001.html>