[Talk-at] Unpaved cycleways in Austria?

Markus Straub markus.straub.at at gmail.com
Sat May 16 15:41:53 UTC 2015


another late reply :)
You are right, the tagging is a bit unclear when reading through the
examples on the Wiki page. Until now I was not aware of this
additional "usage" of oneway:bicycle. For me this was just a way to
clearly state that the road is, in one way or another, usable in both
directions for cyclists.

I am the last editor of the street you used as example and my
rationale was: when a lane is on a certain side (cycleway:right/left)
it is implicitly a oneway.
And cycleway:left=opposite_track implies that the track is a oneway
against the normal driving direction.

I am in general not sure if it's a good idea to use oneway:bicycle to
infer information regarding cycleway:*, since there could be
cycleway:left and cycleway:right - should it apply to one of them? or

A clearer and less ambigous way could be to use this
(cycleway:*:oneway is slightly in use - see taginfo):
cycleway:right:oneway=yes (optional, a lane is by default unidirectional)

It's definitely complex to handle all this information correctly, my
shot at this topic is www.radlkarte.at


On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Pallai Roland <pallair at magex.hu> wrote:
> (I subscribed to the list temporary.)
> 2015-05-10 19:57 GMT+02:00 Pallai Roland <pallair at magex.hu>:
>> Hi,
>> 2015-05-03 21:10 GMT+02:00 Markus Straub <markus.straub.at at gmail.com>:
>>> It's complicated, but I hope this helps a bit.
>> Thanks, it's definitely helped me. I figured out a new marking for unpaved
>> cyclepaths.
>> Now I have ran into a problem with the following way:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8080548
>> Based on the wiki page this tagging is doubtful to me, because it's very
>> similar to M2d, so cycleway:right=lane + oneway:bicycle=no suggests that
>> there is a cycle lane on the right side usable in both directions. I think
>> it would be clearer without the oneway:bicycle=no tag (see M1).
>> You can see the problem on my map: the lane is rendered with thick line
>> what means "usable in both directions".
>> What do you think, is it a tagging issue or should I change my mind?
>>> P.S.: what's the URL of your cyclemap? I'm interested in your project!
>> http://merretekerjek.hu
>> The UI language is hungarian only at present. It's a detailed map and
>> course creator (route planner) based on the Brouter engine. The map style
>> based on osm.org but a lot of bicycle-specific markings are added, too much
>> to list in this mail - check out an area where you have local knowledge and
>> some will become clear.
>> The map style is rather functional than a nice one. My purpose is to
>> provide a detailed map fits for everyday use but help OSM editors to catch
>> incorrect tagging as well. It might shows more than average joe needs.
>> Currently the markings are too fuzzy at some places in Austria for my
>> taste, because there is much higher "bicycle facility density" than I was
>> used but I'm trying to adapt.
>> The code isn't on github yet, but that's the way to go, just need some
>> time to consolidate the project.
>> Sorry for the late reply but I can pay attention to this project only in
>> my spare time.
>>> On 2015-05-03 16:20, Pallai Roland wrote:
>>>> I'm working on a new, detailed web map for cyclists, the coverage has
>>>> been extended to Austria yesterday and I have found something that's
>>>> unusual in Hungary (where I started): unpaved cycleways. See:
>>>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/98p
>>>> Can you tell me are those official cycleways marked with a traffic sign
>>>> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_237.svg.png> in
>>>> Austria? Do the same rules apply to those as to the common cycleways in
>>>> the city? Are those designated for cyclists?
>>>> In Hungary we've cycle routes on unpaved roads of course but that's
>>>> never a cycleway, just a cycle route or recommended way for cyclists
>>>> (traffic sign <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:KRESZ-KPU.png>)
>>>> on an unpaved highway, or an unpaved highway suitable for cycling (but
>>>> not designated for cyclists). If you found some with overpass that's
>>>> just incorrect labeling.

More information about the Talk-at mailing list