[Tagging] cycleway:lane=advisory

Tue Feb 2 05:15:03 UTC 2021

Not trying to be overly critical here, but I'm struggling to how such a
scheme is beneficial compared to moving more towards unifying bicycle
facilities with the rest of lane tagging.  Especially given how cycleways
tend to be part of streets separated only by paint, and increasingly often
the cycleway is not just a painted gutter pan these days.

On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 3:40 PM Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210201/1d0c1c4a/attachment-0001.htm>