[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Advanced cycle barrier tagging

Volker Schmidt voschix at gmail.com
Tue Jul 13 05:02:33 UTC 2021


Forgot to mention that measuring dimensions for re-tagging is unrealistic
in Padova. OSM manpower is not sufficient.
I have tagged some narrower barriers additionally with bicycle=dismount.
Please note that most of this tagging is done from Mapillary photos, not on
the ground survey.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2021, 18:49 Alex, <supaplex at riseup.net> wrote:

> Hey Volker,
>
> Thanks for your reference to Padova! The classification of the types is
> primarily based on what impact the geometry has on the users of the
> path/way – i.e., whether you just have to squeeze through/slowly pass the
> barrier, or have to make one or even two and more "turns". "Chicane" would
> therefore be insufficient for evaluating passability, since there is a
> fundamental difference between whether it is a single or double chicane. I
> have looked at some barriers in Padova, but think that almost all of them
> can be described with the proposed values. Or do you have an example where
> the proposed attributes are not sufficent for describing the
> situation/evaluating passability? One could, of course, include more
> examples or describe "wild forms".
>
> The practical relevance of the tractrix curves would be to calculate exact
> passability information from the width/overlap data of the barriers for
> different vehicle profiles, without having to use rough and inaccurate
> approximations. In the proposal, there is a passability matrix for
> different dimensions for two vehicle types – anyone familiar with tractrix
> curves may calculate something like this for different barrier types and
> vehicle profiles.
>
> Alex
>
>
> Am 12.07.21 um 15:28 schrieb Volker Schmidt:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> a very interesting proposal. Pity that you worked on a local basis.
> I am highly interested in this discussion, as I live and map in the
> most-densely cycle-barriered city of the world (my guess): Berlin has
> 3 769 495 inhabitants and 537 barrier=cycle_barrier in OSM.  Padova has
> some  207 757 inhabitants and 309 barier=cycle_barrier. So we beat you 10:1
> without penalty shooting.
> We have more variety in barrier construction lo have some existing taggong
> practices (undocumented in the wiki). In particular, in Padova we have 149
> “barrier=cycle_barrier and "barrier:type"=chicane” (your double and triple
> cycle_barriers). In total there are 429 of these in Italy.
> If you want to get an idea of what is on the ground in Padova, follow the
> cycle paths in Mapillary.
>
> Do you have any reference to the practical use of the tractrix approach?
>
> Volker
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 13:55, Alex <supaplex at riseup.net> <supaplex at riseup.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hey all,
>
> I would like to invite you to discuss a proposal about "advanced cycle
> barrier tagging": This proposal aims to extend the tagging for cycle
> barriers in order to determine the passability of this kind of barriers for
> different vehicle types, especially cargo bikes, bikes with trailers or
> wheelchairs. It aims to solve issues that has been mentioned on the cycle
> barrier wiki page for more than a decade.
>
> You can find the Proposal here:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Advanced_cycle_barrier_tagging
>
> Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page.
>
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210713/4412c73b/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list