[Tagging] sub key for cycle ways

Hubert sg.forum at gmx.de
Sat Nov 1 00:43:21 UTC 2014


Hallo,
since a new main value for UK:advisary cyclelane, DE:Schutzstreifen,
A:Mehrzweckstreifen, NL:fietsstrook met onderbroken streep, F:bande cyclable
conseillée et réservée, CZ:cyklistický jízdní pruh didn’t get approved, I’m
thinking of introducing a sub key for that. (Like many of you already
suggested.)
As a start I’m thinking of “cycleway=lane + lane=soft_lane” for that
purpose.
However just a key for that one occasion doesn’t seem logical, so a set of
keys defining different types of “on lane”/”on road surface” cycle
infrastructure should be developed, to keep the tagging consistent or to
create a structured concept.
In order to do that, I’m thinking of introducing “lane=strict_lane,
soft_lane, suggestive_lane” for lane like cycle ways where bicycles are
‘encouraged’ to stay on one side of the road and “shared_lane=sharrows,
pictogram, busway” for roads/lanes where bicyclists are not separated from
other traffic.
The in my opinion the main problems in that idea are the use of
“lane=suggestive_lane” and “shared_lane= busway.
“lane=suggestive_lane” because it is in contrast of the current tagging as
“cycleway=shared_lane” in the Netherlands. At least as far as I can
remember. I’m also not sure whether “smurf lanes” in the UK are tagged as
“cycleway=shared_lane”. 
 “shared_lane= busway” since this is currently tagged as “cycleway=share_
busway”. I think that in favor of structure, “shared_lane= busway” should be
allowed. However, I haven’t made up my mind about that yet, or whether
“cycleway=share_ busway” should be deprecated or just be discouraged.
This would leave “cycleway=track, lane, shared_lane, opposite_track,
opposite_lane, opposite” as the main values, “lane=strict_lane, soft_lane,
suggestive_lane” and “shared_lane=sharrows, pictogram, busway”.

Not part of the sub key discussion:
As an addition one could say that a “cycleway=track” is also a lane like
cycle infrastructure, which would make it a “lane=track” sub key. 
Also any “cycleway=opposite(_*)” could be represented by, for example, 
“highway=* + 
oneway=yes + 
oneway:bicycle=no +
cycleway=right/left/both
cycleway:right/left =lane + 
cycleway:right/left:oneway= yes/-1”
(assuming right hand traffic)

What are your thoughts on this tagging scheme? 
I’m sorry, if this is a bit confusing. It’s late but I just couldn’t wait
writing. 

Best regard
Hubert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20141101/1629b545/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list