[Tagging] Intermittently unprotected cycle track

Volker Schmidt voschix at gmail.com
Wed Mar 27 11:37:53 UTC 2019


Tagging of properties of the track should be no problem:
cycleway:left=track
cycleway:left:width=3
cycleway:left:surface=asphalt
...


On Wed, 27 Mar 2019, 12:01 Tobias Zwick, <osm at westnordost.de> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190327/e423f93a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list