[Tagging] documenting cycleway=crossing

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Tue Apr 16 10:34:05 UTC 2019




Apr 16, 2019, 12:22 PM by phil at trigpoint.me.uk:

>
>
> On Tuesday, 16 April 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>>
>> Apr 16, 2019, 8:21 AM by >> tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:tagging at openstreetmap.org>>> :
>>
>> >> highway=cycleway cycleway=crossing
>> >>
>> >
>> > I have been mapping more and more cycleways here in Japan, and there is a true need for cycleway=crossing. 
>> >
>> > Unlike some other countries where the cycleway is more akin to a road, cycleways here in Japan are often treated like footpaths, and dead-end into sidewalks and use pedestrian crosswalks for crossing roads. I have no problem using relation links to incluse non-cycleway ways into a larger cyclepath replation, but often times a cyclepath crosses a road and there is heavily painted markings, such as a zebra crossing. 
>> >
>> It is the same situation as in Poland. I am using highway=crossing bicycle=yes
>> (and highway=crossing bicycle=no for cases where cycleway crosses road and cyclist is legally
>> obligated to dismount and cross as a pedestrian)
>>
>
> I think that should be bicycle=dismount rather than no.
>
> Thats what I use in such circumstances, and matches associated signage.
>
> Routers do support this tag.
>
In Poland separate bicycle=dismount and bicycle=no are misleading as in traffic law these two
are equivalent. Also, in Poland it matches signage better - traffic signs in such situation are
not depicting dismounted cyclists but simply no cyclists or even "no bicycles" sign.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190416/62061ccf/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list