[Talk-at] Unpaved cycleways in Austria?

Sat May 16 22:05:55 UTC 2015

2015-05-16 17:41 GMT+02:00 Markus Straub <markus.straub.at at gmail.com>:

> another late reply :)
>
Just in time for me. :)

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
> both?
>

Yes, there is no consensus for some cases. One such case is when the
cycleway is running on both sides of the two-way street and one of them is
one-way. (If the street is one-way then either side is
opposite_{track,lane} so oneway:bicycle applies to the other side - doesn't
make a sense to apply oneway:bicycle to opposite_* cycleway.)

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

I think it's a viable proposal to extend the current consensus for special
cases (and cycleway:{left,right}:oneway value should be "yes" or "-1" to
describe the direction). I think I will support it in my map. I found an
interesting talk topic
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:cycleway#Two-way_track.2Flane_on_one_side_of_the_road>
 too.

However, the current consensus is not bad. It covers almost all cases out
there and always better to follow the current consensus/recommendation
while we can.

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.

Do you need help to fix tagging in Wien? I could find all ambiguous cases
on overpass with a search for: cycleway:left={lane,track} +
cycleway:left=opposite_{lane,track} + oneway:bicycle=no. Will break your
map if we simply remove oneway:bicycle key if there is an opposite_*
cycleway?

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

Agreed, I also struggled a lot. I haven't seen before, nicer than mine!

> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-at/attachments/20150517/d292e9de/attachment.html>