[Tagging] sub key for cycle ways

[Mateusz Konieczny]

IMHO cycleway=* should stay. cycleway:lanes= would be (is?) significantly
more complex and it may be used in addition, not instead of cycleway=*.

2014-11-03 18:47 GMT+01:00 Hubert <sg.forum at gmx.de>:

> 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 <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 <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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> 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/20141103/7d372f47/attachment-0001.html>