[Tagging] sub key for cycle ways

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Sat Nov 1 02:30:14 UTC 2014

Can we move towards using the lanes tagging used for every other mode
already?  It's much more precise and can deal with situations like where
the bike lane is not the extreme left/right lane.

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Hubert <sg.forum at gmx.de> wrote:

>  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
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20141031/aa6e9760/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list