[Tagging] cycleway:lane=advisory

Mon Feb 1 21:39:13 UTC 2021

Interesting proposal.

I think I understand how you intend to go about this for the cases
cycleway=lane and cycleway=track, i.e. when the cycling infrastructure is
tagged on the highway of the road they are parallel to.

How would you handle the case that the
cycleway|segregated-cycle-foot-way|non-segregated-foot-cycle-way is tagged
as a separate way or the case where the cycleways and footways are drawn as
separate highways?
... and the tedious problem of adoing the not-required tag on hundreds of
thousands of existing ways and all the aspects of full backwatrds
compatibility?

Needs a lot of thinking still before this can become a proposal, I think.

On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 22:11, Alex <supaplex at riseup.net> wrote:

> As a supplement to this discussion, I would like to mention the proposed
> "separation" scheme that we have been experimenting with in Berlin for some
> time:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/cycleway:separation
> (former "protection").
>
> It is mainly intended for mapping Protected Bike Lanes and similar types
> of cycle paths, but can also be used to classify lane markings (especially
> solid and dashed lines, but also special forms like pictogram/surface
> symbolisations).
>
> In my opinion, it should be possible to extract all the information from
> (1) the lane class (lane, track), (2) this type of marking and (3) the
> signage (designated access or traffic sign) in order to be able to make a
> statement about accessibility for other vehicles, compulsory use etc. in
> connection with the country and its laws – thus there would no longer be a
> need to record an "interpreted" value such as "cycleway:lane", but rather
> everything can be extracted from attributes that can really be seen on the
> ground without having any knowledge of the law.
>
> Alex
>
> Am 31.01.21 um 23:06 schrieb Volker Schmidt:
>
> OK, let's take this up again.
>
> I think we can live with the advisory lane if we agree that this means cars
> are advised to keep out.
> But, this must be a new value, not a sub:value.
> For the very simple reason that there is no way of adding
> cycleway:lane=exclusive to the existing 500k cycleway=lane and variants
> like cycleway:right|leftboth=lane, in order to distinguish them from the
> new lane-sub-type.
>
> I suspect that many advisory lanes are tagged as traditional "full" lanes.
> On the French Bicycle wiki page they describe the tagging of their
> Chaucidou roads, which have soft or advisory lanes on both sides with
> simple cycleway=lanes tag.
>
> So it will in any case be a national scheme, bout which I am not terribly
> happy.
>
> Volker
>
> Here are the numbers from Taginfo
>
>
> 307 581
>
> *cycleway* <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway> <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway>
>
> *lane* <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway=lane> <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway=lane>
>
> 124 329
>
> *cycleway*:right <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aright> <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aright>
>
> *lane* <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aright=lane> <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aright=lane>
>
> 47 113
>
> *cycleway*:left <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aleft> <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aleft>
>
> *lane* <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aleft=lane> <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aleft=lane>
>
> 5 310
>
> *cycleway*:both <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aboth> <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aboth>
>
> *lane* <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aboth=lane> <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aboth=lane>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1 891
>
> cycleway:right:lane<https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aright%3Alane> <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aright%3Alane>
>
> advisory<https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aright%3Alane=advisory> <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aright%3Alane=advisory>
>
> 1 606
>
> cycleway:both:lane<https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aboth%3Alane> <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aboth%3Alane>
>
> advisory<https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aboth%3Alane=advisory> <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aboth%3Alane=advisory>
>
> 1 414
>
> cycleway:lane <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Alane> <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Alane>
>
> advisory <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Alane=advisory> <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Alane=advisory>
>
> 994
>
> cycleway:left:lane<https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aleft%3Alane> <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aleft%3Alane>
>
> advisory
>
> 606
>
> Cycleway:lane
>
> exclusive
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 15:46, Tobias Zwick <osm at westnordost.de> <osm at westnordost.de> wrote:
>
>
> Right, and this tagging solves this problem:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway:lane
>
> "Real" cycle lanes:
>
>    cycleway=lane
>    cycleway:lane=exclusive
>
> "Advisory"/suggestion/unsafe/purely cosmetic/dashed/...:
>
>     cycleway=lane
>     cycleway:lane=advisory
>
> I mentioned a (string of) forum discussions that led to this tagging
> suggestion. Here is the last forum discussion:https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=61427
>
> In it, you will also find the reasons why cycleway=soft_lane was ruled out.
>
> Tobias
>
> On 19/01/2021 00:18, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> The problem is that all over Italy funding is available for these
> "cheap" cycle lanes (they do not need any vertical signposting, just
> paint on the asphalt)
> We need to map them in OSM, and we need to map them differently from the
> "classical" bicycle lanes. With my hat as active member in a cyclists'
> association, I see a need to distinguish between the two types, because
> they are legally very different (and in the view of many also even more
> dangerous than the old types, simply because they are much narrower,
> less visible and legally open to be used by cars.
> The other thing is that we have two different keys in the database. One
> as part of an  rejected proposal, the newer one was inserted in the wiki
> after an inconclusive discussion in the German OSM forum.
> The older (rejected) proposal cycleway=soft_lane has the advantage over
> the newer cycleway:lane=advisory|mandatory in the sense that it does not
> have the need to retrofit the "mandatory" on the non-advisory lanes. It
> would create an additional cycleway class and not a new subclass of the
> lane class of cycleways.
>
> This would work in Italy, as we did not have soft lanes until a couple
> of months ago.
>
> Other countries. like the Netherlands and Germany have had this type of
> soft lanes already for many years. This may pose the problem that many
> (all?) soft lanes have been tagged as normal lanes.
>
> <
>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>
>
>       Virus-free. www.avast.com
> <
>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>
>
> <#m_9164321382758350603_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 18:11, Marc_marc <marc_marc at mailo.com<mailto:marc_marc at mailo.com> <marc_marc at mailo.com>> wrote:
>
>     Le 18.01.21 à 17:51, Volker Schmidt a écrit :
>      > There is no clear definition in the wiki, but from the wording
>      > I assume that their use is not mandatory
>
>     I have the same understanding,
>     even though I've never seen this traffic sign.
>
>      > So the value "advisory" is wrong.
>
>     In italy. or you have a global knowledge ?
>     So 2 issues :
>     - improve the wiki
>     - 14 objects in Italy :) start an editor and fix it :)
>     you could also propose a validation rule for iD and josm
>     so the user receives a warning before uploading
>
>     Regards,
>     Marc
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org> <Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
>
>
> <
>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>
>
>       Virus-free. www.avast.com
> <
>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>
>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://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/20210201/fa0d88cf/attachment.htm>