[Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

[Volker Schmidt]

I would advocate a more generic approach that remains open to other types
of hazards (there are many, unfortunately).
A generic
hazard:bicycle=yes|dooring|pedestrians_on_cycleway|dangerous_exit|whatever
(I have started using provisionally
hazard:bicycle=yes plus description= but that needs improvement)
Then you putthat that to whatever element is involved (way, crossing node,
gate, ...)

In the same way you could create hazard:foot (or hazard:pedestrian), and
hazard:wheelchair, and  hazard:motorcycle, and hazard:motorcar .....

Or something along these lines ...




On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 16:42, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 00:30, Hubert87 <sg.forum at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> (Two replies is one)
>>
>> Am 03.05.2020 um 15:29 schrieb Andrew Harvey:
>>
>> On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 23:14, Hubert87 <sg.forum at gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>> I like the idea of using "buffered".
>>>
>>> "doorzone" to me, is a pretty laoded and subjective.
>>>
>>
>> I don't see it as subjective. If there is parking directly next to the
>> bicycle lane and if a parked car opening a door would intersect with the
>> marked bicycle lane, then the bicycle lane is within a door zone. Is it the
>> term that's the issue or the concept? Judging by the wikipedia page
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doored it seems like a fairly widespread
>> term globally.
>>
>> I'm familiar with that term and the concept. However 'doorzone' (to me)
>> seems to have negativ implications (=> hazard), due to cyclists being
>> doored. (If I remeber corectly, cyclelanes/paths next to parking cars don't
>> seem to be a big problem in NL due to the "Dutch Reach", this is similar to
>> cyclist being right-hooked as it is inherend of the position of the
>> cycleway relativ to the carrigeway)
>>
>> So, I'd rather see the concept of "doorzone" be an emergend property of
>> multiple other tags (buffer, position of cycle lane, ...) derived by data
>> users/renderes/routers.
>>
> While that does sound better, it is also quite complex as you point out
> taking into account buffer, buffer distance, position of lanes but also
> relative ordering of the traffic, parking and bicycle lane, counterflow
> cycle lanes. Because of this a quick and simply "doorzone" tag I think is
> useful for mappers who don't want to go into such detail. It also makes it
> clear, otherwise there could always be a slight difference between data
> contributor expectation and data consumer given the complex evaluation
> without a dedicated door zone tag.
>
>
>
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 00:19, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> do you really need the lane component?
>> Could be cycleway:doorzone=yes/no
>> or with left/right when lanes on both sides exist that have different
>> properties.
>>
>
> Agreed.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200503/eb283028/attachment.htm>