[talk-au] Cycle Routes & Bicycle advisory road markings (Was: Marrickville Cycle Routes (Was: Re: Redaction recovery))
ben.kelley at gmail.com
Wed Aug 1 03:12:56 BST 2012
When there is only a bike logo painted on the road I generally just use
lcn=yes (or apply an equivalent relation).
Contrary to the Wikipedia article, you can always use the whole lane
regardless of the marking. (Except when there is a b&w bike lane sign.) I
don't think these road markings warrant a cycleway= tag.
- Ben Kelley.
On Aug 1, 2012 12:03 PM, "Sam Russell" <g.samuelrussell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Ian,
> In contrast to:
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2319564
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2319563
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2319565
> which are continuously marked with the blue route marker, my previous
> experience of L8/L13 in Marrickville indicates that marking will be
> sporadic (and therefore "fun").
> It would be great if someone knew the AS1742 code for the outdated blue
> bicycle route markers, because key:traffic_sign follows the format:
> > key:traffic_sign=AU:AS1742.1-YEAR:Code
> In the meantime I'm happy to code them:
> > key:traffic_sign=AU:blue bike route
> * * *
> As another bicycle related question, could other mappers opine on bicycle
> advisory road markings, in particular could we discuss the following points:
> Bicycle advisory road markings in the centres of lanes (
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/23392343 (Between Elizabeth
> and Regent)
> I would propose we treat these as infrastructure with cycleway = shared or
> cycleway = sharrow
> Users at sydneycyclist appear to value the effect of these of vehicle
> Bicycle advisory road markings in the door zone, or under parked cars
> I would propose we ignore these as infrastructure, and only attend to them
> as proof of "map only" lcns where the marking is consistent over the
> council's mapped route
> Sam R.
> On 1 August 2012 10:02, Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 31 July 2012 11:49, Sam Russell <g.samuelrussell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Where route numbers are in repair or in repair but separated by clear
>>> intervening route signs, keep the route ref and name.
>>> Where route numbers are in disrepair copy key:ref=L# to key:old_ref=L#?
>>> My Saturday ride is unplanned right now, I'm happy to go chasing routing
>>> and route identity signs in Marrickville.
>> If you decide to go, by all means map the location of any signs you find
>> with key=traffic_sign.
>> My feeling is that following any of the numbered routes by means of
>> following the equivalent signs isn't doable any longer.
>> Otherwise, I'll be interested to see if Ben gets a response from the
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-au