[Tagging] sub key for cycle ways

Hubert sg.forum at gmx.de
Mon Nov 3 17:47:05 UTC 2014


Indeed, Point 2 is also a very widely given situation in Germany. Also in cases where there are dedicated left turn cycle lanes. (Between the left turn lane and the through lane for cars.). But the question is, whether we should abandon cycleway=* tagging on the main road in favor for, let us say, cycleway:lanes=, or do we allow lane tagging in addition to the well established cycleway=* scheme.

To get back to the original discussion, how would you like to see the “soft_lane” being incorporated into either of the two tagging schemes?

 

I look forward to your thoughts,

Hubert

 

From: Mateusz Konieczny [mailto:matkoniecz at gmail.com] 
Sent: Samstag, 1. November 2014 22:34
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] sub key for cycle ways

 

"2. the cases where the bike lane is in the middle of the road is limited" - bicycle lane in 
the middle is standard before advanced stop line (to be on the left side of right-turn) - 

at least in Poland


"3. “cycleway=track” would look funny using that scheme" - cycleway=track is anyway

not compatible with detailed tagging

 

2014-11-01 14:18 GMT+01:00 Hubert <sg.forum at gmx.de>:

Sure, but I think it is best to do that in addition and not instead of “cycleway=*“ tagging. For one it takes more effort, 2. the cases where the bike lane is in the middle of the road is limited. (not counting parking lanes). 3. “cycleway=track” would look funny using that scheme. Also adding more data about the lane is imo easier with a namespace based tagging scheme of “cycleway:*=*.

On Sa, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Paul Johnson < <mailto:baloo at ursamundi.org> baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:

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 < <mailto:sg.forum at gmx.de> 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
 <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
 <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
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/20141103/bc4aa874/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list