[Tagging] cycleway:lane=advisory

Tue Feb 2 15:02:08 UTC 2021

If community agrees it is possible to retag all lanes tagged before September 2020
and add extra tags there using a bot.

Feb 2, 2021, 15:44 by voschix at gmail.com:

> Agreed.
>
> But the bogus option would be perfect for Italy.
> Until >Septeber 2020 we did not have advisory lanes. All our mapped bicycle lanes to that point were exclusive lanes (in fact in legalese they are not cycle lanes at all, they are called, very confusingly, also to Italians, "piste ciclabili in corsia riservata su carreggiata" or "cycleways on dedicated lanes on the carriageway". They correspond, more or less, to the Radstreifen" in Germany or "cycle lanes" in the UK.
> The new type of lanes, that correspond, according to their legal definition, to the German "Schutstreifen" and the British Advisory Lane, are called "corsie ciclabili" - "bicycle lanes".
> I am after a solution that allows me to add the new (advisory-type) lanes without having to modify the tagging of the "classical" bicycle lanes.
> And I would do that quickly before we will have many of the new type lanes in the database.
> I would prefer a solution in line with at least some other countries, which have similar types of infrastructure.
>
> A question to Tobias: how do you handle this in Germany?  You must have a major rettaging process under way.
>
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 14:25, Tobias Zwick <> osm at westnordost.de> > wrote:
>
>> Okay, so there are 485k cycleway=lane and variants and 15k 
>>  cycleway:lane=* and variants.
>>  
>>  So for 470k (97%) of all cycle lanes tagged, it is unknown whether they 
>>  are exclusive ("full") lanes or advisory ("dashed") cycle lanes. Both 
>>  exclusive and advisory lanes have been tagged with cycleway=lane because 
>>  (until 2 years ago[1]) there was no way described how to distinguish 
>>  them. That is the de-facto situation.
>>  
>>  When we want to record more detail on the cycle lane type and/or we feel 
>>  that the tag is ambiguous, there are only 2 real options how to go about 
>>  this and 1 bogus option.
>>  
>>  Two years ago, after the previously linked discussion, I chose to 
>>  document option 1, because it is the best.
>>  
>>  Option 1:
>>  ------
>>  Use a subtag to define what kind of cycleway=lane it is in more detail.
>>  
>>  This is done almost everywhere. type of bollards, type of surveillance, 
>>  type of artwork, of memorial, of recycling, of bench, of doctor, etc 
>>  etc. etc.
>>  
>>  This is the least invasive approach. Data consumers who are just 
>>  interested in a lower level of detail, f.e. only process that there is a 
>>  doctor, but not what type of doctor; only process that there is a cycle 
>>  lane but not what type - are not affected.
>>  
>>  
>>  Option 2:
>>  ------
>>  Deprecate cycleway=lane because it is ambiguous and migrate to 
>>  cycleway=exclusive_lane and cycleway=advisory_lane instead.
>>  
>>  This has been done on a few occasions in the past, most notably for 
>>  landuse=farm to farmyard or farmland. surface=cobblestone to sett or 
>>  unhewn_cobblestone might count, too.
>>  
>>  However, the former was accompanied by a large concerted effort by the 
>>  community. It was doable because farmland and farmyards are very easy to 
>>  tell apart from aerial imagery so it could be done from the home 
>>  computer. All data consumers that supported landuse=farm also had to 
>>  adjust after the break.
>>  For the latter, there are still and likely always will be loads of 
>>  surface=cobblestone around. This is a property one can't ascertain from 
>>  aerial imagery. So, surface=cobblestone just means "either sett or 
>>  unhewn cobblestone". Thus, sett and unhewn cobblestone are a bit of a 
>>  subtype of surface=cobblestone just like building=detached is a subtype 
>>  of building=house which is a subtype of building=residential which is a 
>>  subtype of building=yes.
>>  This implicit subtyping is a little difficult to handle.
>>  
>>  
>>  Bogus Option:
>>  ------
>>  Add a new cycleway tag alongside the current cycleway=lane tag, f.e. 
>>  cycleway=advisory_lane.
>>  
>>  By adding this new tag value, it implicitly redefines cycleway=lane to 
>>  mean "only exclusive lanes" and thus an unknown number of these taggings 
>>  would abruptly be wrong. This is why such redefinitions de-facto don't 
>>  happen.
>>  Also, this approach is problem because there is no way to tell whether 
>>  any cycleway=lane has already been resurveyed and adjudged to really be 
>>  an exclusive cycle lane or whether it has not been surveyed yet.
>>  
>>  This is the reason why this is not a real option.
>>  
>>  [1] >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway:lane
>>  
>>  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>> >
>>  >
>>  > *lane*<>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway=lane>> >
>>  >
>>  > 124 329
>>  >
>>  > *cycleway*:right<>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aright>> >
>>  >
>>  > *lane*<>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aright=lane>> >
>>  >
>>  > 47 113
>>  >
>>  > *cycleway*:left<>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aleft>> >
>>  >
>>  > *lane*<>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aleft=lane>> >
>>  >
>>  > 5 310
>>  >
>>  > *cycleway*:both<>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aboth>> >
>>  >
>>  > *lane*<>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aboth=lane>> >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > 1 891
>>  >
>>  > cycleway:right:lane
>>  > <>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/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>> >
>>  >
>>  > advisory
>>  > <>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aboth%3Alane=advisory>> >
>>  >
>>  > 1 414
>>  >
>>  > cycleway:lane<>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Alane>> >
>>  >
>>  > advisory<>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Alane=advisory>> >
>>  >
>>  > 994
>>  >
>>  > cycleway:left:lane
>>  > <>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aleft%3Alane>> >
>>  >
>>  > advisory
>>  >
>>  > 606
>>  >
>>  > Cycleway:lane
>>  >
>>  > exclusive
>>  
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  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/20210202/3994be2e/attachment.htm>