[Tagging] Intermittently unprotected cycle track

[Tobias Zwick]

Hi Richard

I'd tag this situation with cycleway=track/lane/shared_lane on the road itself. I don't see the namespacing as an issue here.

The rule of thumb I (we?) use to decide whether a cycleway shall better be tagged as a separate way is to look if the cycleway is segregated from the road by more than a curb, such as scrub or a tree row. In other words, so that bicyclists can not simply cross onto the street at any point without a dedicated crossing.

Tobias 

Am 27. März 2019 11:31:18 MEZ schrieb Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemeD.net>:
>Hi all,
>
>Let me introduce you to one of London's better cycleways:
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53397/-0.00715
>https://cycle.travel/map?lat=51.5254&lon=-0.0335&zoom=17
>
>You might look at this and think "that doesn't look like 'better' to
>me, 
>it's full of 45-degree bends". And based on OSM you would of course be 
>right.
>
>In reality it isn't full of 45-degree bends. It's a continuous straight
>
>route. But although it's mostly protected (i.e. concrete barrier 
>separating it from the car lanes), the protection gives out at
>junctions 
>and crossings, so turning traffic can cross. Here's an example 
>(apologies for Google link):
>
>https://goo.gl/maps/rFHNHdCxMCp
>
>Currently, it's mapped in OSM as a highway=cycleway for the segregated 
>bits, and then it rejoins the highway=primary road (with cycleway=lane)
>
>where the barrier gives out.
>
>This is correctish in terms of tagging but not in terms of geometry.
>The 
>current mapping implies 45-degree turns which the cyclist doesn't have 
>to take - they just continue straight on. Breaking geometry to enable 
>tagging is bad in itself, misleading on renderings, and unsurprisingly 
>confuses the heck out of routers.
>
>How should we represent this?
>
>My gut feeling is that it would be better to map it as a continuous 
>highway=cycleway but with 'protected=no' for the bits where the
>concrete 
>divider isn't there.
>
>Another alternative might include deleting the cycleway completely and 
>just using cycleway=track on the car road, but this seems suboptimal as
>
>you can't then easily apply tagging that applies distinctly to the 
>cycleway (surface, route relation membership, etc.) without lots of 
>namespacing.
>
>Or we could just go with highway=cycleway and no additional tagging, on
>
>the basis that 'unprotected' is implied by the pedestrian-crossing tags
>
>and the junction geometry - i.e. obviously there's no protection there 
>because we have a junction which cars can turn across.
>
>Any preferences?
>
>cheers
>Richard
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging