[talk-au] Cycle Routes & Bicycle advisory road markings (Was: Marrickville Cycle Routes (Was: Re: Redaction recovery))

[Ben Kelley]

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
> and
> > 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 It would be great if someone knew the AS1742 code for the outdated blue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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_lane_marking)
> > 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
> behaviour.
>
> 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
>
> opinions?
>
> yours,
> 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
>> council.
>>
>> Ian.
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20120801/e68e9f81/attachment.html>