[Tagging] documenting cycleway=crossing
matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Tue Apr 16 16:42:32 UTC 2019
Apr 16, 2019, 3:47 PM by marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com:
> Le 16.04.19 à 15:25, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
>> Apr 16, 2019, 2:50 PM by >> marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com <mailto:marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com>>> :
>> > highway=path/highway=footway that has bicycle=yes/bicycle=designated.
>> highway=path + path=crossing + bicycle=yes|designate
>> or highway=footway + footway=crossing + bicycle=yes|designate
>> is not enought ?
>> It is enough, I rephrased it. Hopefully it is now more redable
>> direct link: >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway=crossing <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dcrossing>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:cycleway=crossing&type=revision&diff=1843156&oldid=1843110 <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Acycleway%3Dcrossing&type=revision&diff=1843156&oldid=1843110>
> yes it's more redable, but i still find it strange.
> I think this tag only makes sense when one of these
> two ways crosses a road :
> highway=path|footway + cycleway=*
> if there is no cycleway=* before the crossing,
> it is normal that the crossing way does not have a cycleway
> e.g. a highway=path + cycleway=no + bicycle=yes crossing a road
> must not have a cycleway=crossing. no cycleway exist there.
I never used this tagging but it happens. For example http://mpi.krakow.pl/pliki/293415/3 <http://mpi.krakow.pl/pliki/293415/3>
(image from http://krakow.pl/aktualnosci/226594,1912,komunikat,awaria_wodociagu_na_skrzyzowaniu_ul__opolskiej_i_al__29_listopada.html <http://krakow.pl/aktualnosci/226594,1912,komunikat,awaria_wodociagu_na_skrzyzowaniu_ul__opolskiej_i_al__29_listopada.html> )
has dedicated cycleway crossing, without cycleway on either side
(depending on how pedantic you are, cycling on surrounding footways may be
even considered illegal).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging