[Tagging] Mapping cycle tracks as separate geometries, but still know they are tracks?

[Volker Schmidt]

Hi Jens,

(I am a bicycle-centered mapper in Italy.)

I'm currently preparing to map a new cycle track that was recently
> completed. We're lucky enough that someone has filmed this with a drone:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sevJH7AXxU
>

A very forma question: can we use a youtube video as a source for OSM data?
I would not think so.

The design manual for cycle tracks
>
quote?

> states they must be elevated from the carriageway, and optionally with a
> sidewalk that is even more elevated, and must be ramped down to the
> carriageway level at every junction and be marked as a cycle lane.
>
Does this also hold for driveways joining the road?

> Also, the design manual states that it must be placed behind bus stops.
>
How does the pedestrian (including wheelchair user) get to the
bus-stop-platform ?  She needs to cross the cycle track that that is
between the footway and the bus stop platform?

What this video shows is going to be a typical setup in Norway in the time
> to come, so I thought I'd prepare a mapping guide for OSM-NO.
>
Good idea.

 Cycle tracks can be mapped with the carriageway on a single line
>
should be discouraged, in my view, if there is any kind of barrier (kerb,
strip of grass, ...)

> , or as a separate line.
>
should be indicated as preferred

As a single line, a normal scenario will be this:
>
> highway=* + cycleway:*=lane + sidewalk=*  for the parts around junctions
>
highway=* + cycleway:*=track + sidewalk=*  for the middle parts
> highway=* + cycleway:left/right=track + sidewalk:left/right for the
> non-bus stop-side and highway=cycleway + sidewalk=*  for the bus stop-side
>

Just to make sure I understand correctly
This normal scenario is to tag motor-traffic-carriageway + two one-way
cycle-only ways + two pedestrian-only ways, all separated from each other
by kerbs?

I presume "Parts around junctions" means the cycle and pedestrian crossings
on the side road, as shown at 27" in the video.
This means you do not map the cycle-pedestrian crossing on the side road.
The video shows only a cycle crossing (bicycle lane with dashed lines), but
where do the pedestrians cross the side road ???

I presume the "middle parts"  are the layout shown at 1' in the video.
Fine apart form the fact that the single lane tagging does not allow you to:

   - indicate whether the sidewalk is close to the carriageway or the cycle
   path.
   - distinguish between a situation where a white line or colour
   difference separates the foot part from the cycle part or a kerb or another
   type of separator


> As a separate line, you'd potentially have this:
>

> highway=* + cycleway:*=lane + sidewalk=* for the parts around junctions
>
(2x) highway=cycleway + sidewalk=* for the middle parts
>

The standard option that is often used here would be three ways, when there
is a physical separation between foot and cycle lane (like the kerb in your
case)
For the carriageway:

   - highway=whatever

For each foot-cycleway

   - highway=path
   - foot=designated
   - bicycle=designated
   - segregated=yes

For the crossing of side-roads in addition:
- for the crossing way

   - path=crossing

- on the crossing node

   - highway=crossing


The third, even more correct scheme in your case seems using up to five
separate ways: carriageway + two one-way cycle paths (highway=cycleway) +
two footways as sidewalks.

In that case we do have on the ground separate, parallel crossing ways for
bicycle and pedestrians, typically a few meters apart

>
> Either scheme is fine, depending on what mappers want to do, so that is
> NOT what this question is about :)
>
> The downside of the second approach is we are not "allowed" to tag the
> highway=cycleway as a track.
>
What is the problem with this?. cycleway=track is only used in the case the
single-way approach, which is not applicable in that case.
With the approach foot=designated / bicycle=designated people also use
highway=track, highway=cycleway instead of highway=path, if they are
happier that way.

>
> The reason it would be valuable to tag highway=cycleway as a track in
> this instance is that a track has requirements for separation from other
> mode types that are more similar to a cycle lane than to an actual bike
> path (at least in Norway). So you'll be significantly safer on a bike path
> than you will be on a cycle track, and marginally safer on a cycle track
> than in a cycle lane. For that reason, it'd be nice to know if what we have
> is a track or a path.
>
Could you give pointers to photos of real situations, please,  for the
Norwegian cycle track and cycle paths you are referring to.

For those who are interested, the requirement is 3 m separation between
> bike path and carriageway when the speed limit is > 50 kph, 1.5 m
> separation when the speed limit is <= 50 kph, and optionally separation can
> be achieved with a ~1 m proper fence if there isn't enough room for those
> separation distances.
>
> Compared to a cycle track, where the separation requirement is a 10 cm
> kerb (which is only an obstacle from the carriageway perspective),
> regardless of speed limit.
>
> I would be much more comfortable sending my kids out on a bike path than
> on a cycle track, and I'd rate the track and the lane as practically the
> same when it comes to my kids. Obviously the 3 m/1.5 m/fence will keep them
> out of danger even if they veer or fall, but the 10 cm drop down the kerb
> won't.
>
> So, my question is:
>
> How could we tag separately drawn cycleway tracks so that we know they are
> tracks?
>

This seems to boil down on how to map the Norwegian situation on the
existing tagging schemes in OSM, or even a translation problem. Should be
solvable, as keys and values are after all only arbitrary strings in OSM.
Any meaning of the strings is to help the mapper, but is not essential to
the way the data works.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220811/c5cee981/attachment.htm>