[Tagging] documenting cycleway=crossing

[John Willis]

> highway=path



This is all a result on an incomplete tagging set, and using highway=path as a catch-all tag to avoid creation and documentation of missing tags. Any and all of the footway=* values and sub-tags should also be available for cycleway=* path=* and bridleway=* as well.

Also, there is "pedestrian street”  but no "cycling street” -  another missing highway=* value. these force unnecessary disparities in tagging method. all those videos I see of people in Amsterdam cycling on wide dedicated cycling roads with signals and stop lights and corssing and whatnot seems like a road to me. 

but I am not here for that today, just cycleway=crossing. 

When mapping the cycling “roads” I encounter here in Japan, it is a cycleway. it may have foot=yes, but it is a cycleway. it is built and graded and signed and has curves and access ramps to be a cycleway. it is not a footway or a path. it is a cycleway. It quacks like a cycleway, so it is one. 

In many instances, cycleways are interrupted by large trunk roads, forcing cyclists onto a footway=sidewalk and to use regular pedestrian infrastructure at lights and signals. this is especially true where a cycling road follows a river, and a trunk road crossing the river via a bridge forces cyclists to use footways and a nearby intersection crosswalk to get to the other side of the bridge to continue on the cycling road. in rural areas with very long cycling roads, this is common. I know how to tag all that. That is not for cycleway=crossing.

But there are also many dedicated cycleways marked with their own crossings when they have to cross a smaller road where a bypass tunnel is not practical. 


Here is a location where I have cycleway and footway bridges, unmarked crossings, and marked crossings. There are some cuttings and tunnels too. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/36.28425/137.90828 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/36.28425/137.90828>


Similar to how we have bridges, tunnels, cuttings, and other features of the way, “crossing” is not any different. the handwringing over having to to use “path” is taking it way too far. 

We wouldn't be doing such mental gymnastics for a bridge - it too is a property of the way, and tags the method of crossing another way (the river). 

"It is a cycleway. it is a bridge.” is no different than “it is a cycleway. "It is a road crossing” , beyond the intersecting node. 

Regardless if it is appropriate for use in your country,  think we can be flexible enough to use cycleway=crossing in situations in countries where it is appropriate. 

Javbw


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190417/067ad3a4/attachment.html>