[Tagging] documenting cycleway=crossing

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Wed Apr 17 09:21:35 UTC 2019

So where a cycleway crosses a road with a dedicated crossing:

* the crossing section has nodes on each side indicating where the crossing
physically begins and ends;
* the crossing section is tagged highway=cycleway, crossing=yes


Vr gr Peter Elderson

Op wo 17 apr. 2019 om 05:50 schreef John Willis via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org>:

> 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
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190417/8f0432ba/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list